Mike Colangelo
2022-11-29 16:05:52 UTC
On every date, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
Neither one. Scalia's comment is straight-forward English that any native
English speaker who isn't suffering from catastrophic brain damage can
understand at a glance.
You don't have a right to just whatever arms you wish to have. That's what
Scalia said. Scalia didn't say that based on his mere personal opinion. He
said that because that's historically what the right was always understood to
mean by legal scholars and judges (who didn't have catastrophic brain damage
like you).
This is settled.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
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.
[emphasis added]
It is either wrong or you interpreted it wrongclearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
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.
[emphasis added]
English speaker who isn't suffering from catastrophic brain damage can
understand at a glance.
You don't have a right to just whatever arms you wish to have. That's what
Scalia said. Scalia didn't say that based on his mere personal opinion. He
said that because that's historically what the right was always understood to
mean by legal scholars and judges (who didn't have catastrophic brain damage
like you).
This is settled.