Says who?
If that’s not the context, how am I supposed to protect myself from a tyrannical government?
Where does the 2nd say that.
Why should we have to keep repeating ourselves? The term was defined at the time of the drafting. Again, see Heller and MacDonald.
Oh, you mean the Heller where Scalia wrote the majority opinion that included the part that no rights, including those protected by the 2nd, are unlimited?
And once again what specific examples did he cite?
Hint, none that infringed on “The Right of The People”.
He didn’t need to cite a specific example to state that NO RIGHTS ARE UNLIMITED. He didn’t stutter when he wrote that.
He SPECIFICALLY mentioned that the rights protected by the 2nd are not unlimited.
He did cite specific examples. Have you ever actually read the decision?
None of those examples infringe on “The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms”.
In each case they are examples of individuals losing their rights through due process of law.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
He could not have been more clear.
Some argue that Scalia was wrong, and that the bearing of ALL arms is protected by the 2nd.
So which is it?
Did he use grenades as an example?
But he did, didn’t he?
Pistol<Rifle<World
The paragraph these people seem incapable of reading.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g. , Sheldon , in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g. , State v. Chandler , 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State , 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26
With a pistol I can take a rifle, with a rifle, I can take an RPG or MANPAD, with an RPG I can take a tank.
Small arms are the foundation of defense.
Who interprets the constitution. Darn this is easy.
1 Like
Are grenades an “arm?” Where can we find a definitive list of “arms” the founders sought to protect in the writing of the 2nd?
Yeah, the 2nd was an example of rights protected by the constitution but that are not unlimited.
". From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ’
Shall not be infringed. So are all of those courts and commentators wrong, as Sneaky would have us believe? Are the rights protected by the 2nd unlimited or not?
Supreme Court rulings are not MY interpretation nor do they have anything to do with my feelings. The problem is that you are in denial of the facts.
What part of grenades are not arms did you not understand?
No, he was right. Our second Amendment Rights have been and are infringed upon, which is makes his statement factually correct. Where he erred is that those words left the vague suggestion that it is okay to violate those Rights.
