Florida School Shooting

[Sparko]

Well, think what you want, you're wrong as usual anyway. The fact is that even conservative Supreme court Justices, Constitutional scholars, say that you are wrong in your understanding of the 2nd amendment. It's not unlimited!

Please feel free to quote them to me to show me how wrong I am.

[JimL]

Please feel free to quote them to me to show me how wrong I am.

Here you go, from your favorite Supreme Court Justice.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ant...un_Control.htm

Can you see how wrong you are now? No? I didn't think so.

[Sparko]

Here you go, from your favorite Supreme Court Justice.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ant...un_Control.htm

Can you see how wrong you are now? No? I didn't think so.

I said quote them, not argue by weblink. Show me where I was wrong.

[Adrift]

Yeah, I got that part - I just thought he fired "out the window" like "I have this gun, and I intended to do something with it, so THERE!" Maybe we'll learn more.

Yeah, I don't know. For some reason from the descriptions I was reading I imagined he shot the gun at an indoor window facing a hallway, and not windows that faced the outside of the building, but that may be completely wrong.

But I noticed that "gunshots" in the initial reporting morphed into "a shot".

Hmm. I hadn't heard about multiple gunshots in the initial reporting.

[Cow Poke]

I said quote them, not argue by weblink. Show me where I was wrong.

Why don't we make a special thread to collect all these JimmyRuptions in?

[Sparko]

From the link:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

[Cow Poke]

Which is why revolvers that automatically cock the hammer (which i assume is most of them these days) ARE semi-automatic.

Even a double action revolver requires the manual cocking by squeezing the trigger - it's just that squeezing the trigger performs the function of cocking, as well as firing. That's what "double action" means - pulling the trigger revolves the cylinder so that another round is ready, and cocks and releases the hammer, causing the firing pin to strike the cartridge, firing the round. That same sequence has to happen with each pull of the trigger.

The "semi-auto" part specifically means that the weapon's own mechanics (usually "gas operated" from the previously spent cartridge) perform the functions of loading another round in the chamber, and "cocking" the gun ready for another firing. You only "cock" the gun manually once, by pulling back the slide, which puts a round in the chamber and cocks the hammer manually the first time. After that, it's operating "semi-automatically".

[JimL]

I said quote them, not argue by weblink. Show me where I was wrong.

Okay, if you really need to be spoon fed here is Scalia's own words.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.....It is ...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding pohibitions 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."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that the limitation is fairly supported by historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Clear enough for you?

[Sparko]

Okay, if you really need to be spoon fed here is Scalia's own words.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.....It is ...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding pohibitions 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."

I already said you could make an exception for felons and perhaps the mentally ill. Did you not read what I posted?

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that the limitation is fairly supported by historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Clear enough for you?

Sorry but I don't see that anywhere on the link you just cited. Want to try again?

As I said, there were early machine guns (similar to gatling guns) bombs, cannons and other such weapons available at the time and they were not excluded from the 2nd amendment.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue here. Yes the supreme court has tried to put restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but they are in fact breaking the constitution. Not upholding it. The supreme court can "interpret" the constitution (that's their job) but nothing says that their interpretation is correct. If that were the case then there would never be any reversals of their decisions later, which there are.

[JimL]

I already said you could make an exception for felons and perhaps the mentally ill. Did you not read what I posted?

Oh really, we can make exceptions? Says who? You?

Sorry but I don't see that anywhere on the link you just cited. Want to try again?

As I said, there were early machine guns (similar to gatling guns) bombs, cannons and other such weapons available at the time and they were not excluded from the 2nd amendment.

Common usage at the times Sparko, common arms used by the people at the time were muskets. Now surely you know that's what Scalia means, or do you think people commonly had cannons and gatling guns?

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue here. Yes the supreme court has tried to put restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but they are in fact breaking the constitution. Not upholding it. The supreme court can "interpret" the constitution (that's their job) but nothing says that their interpretation is correct. If that were the case then there would never be any reversals of their decisions later, which there are.

Well, I didn't expect anything to change your mind, but you asked for Scalia's opinion. He says you're wrong, so does another ultra conservative justice, Warren Burger, who says that your inherited view of the 2nd amendment is the greatest fraud to have ever been perpetrated on the american public. Like Scalia said, "just like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited," and it is left up to us to decide those limitations.

[Sparko]

Oh really, we can make exceptions? Says who? You?


Common usage at the times Sparko, common arms used by the people at the time were muskets. Now surely you know that's what Scalia means, or do you think people commonly had cannons and gatling guns?

Well, I didn't expect anything to change your mind, but you asked for Scalia's opinion. He says you're wrong, so does another ultra conservative justice, Warren Burger, who says that your inherited view of the 2nd amendment is the greatest fraud to have ever been perpetrated on the american public. Like Scalia said, "just like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited," and it is left up to us to decide those limitations.

Again, you have not given a source for your quote about muskets. IF he said that and it was in the context you are referring to, then he is a grade-A moron.

[JimL]

Again, you have not given a source for your quote about muskets. IF he said that and it was in the context you are referring to, then he is a grade-A moron.

Well, I guess what it comes down to then is that either the Justices are grade-A morons, or you are.

[Sparko]

Well, I guess what it comes down to then is that either the Justices are grade-A morons, or you are.

Or you are because you don't have a clue what he was saying.

He wasn't saying that the 2nd amendment just covers muskets. He was saying that it covers all firearms in common use. 200 years ago that covered muskets and pistols and canons and swords and such. Today that means pistols, and semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s and any other common fire arm.

Where I disagree is that I think that the 2nd amendment was clear: there are no restrictions at all. They could have easily said "only commonly used firearms" but it didn't. And it doesn't just mean the militia like you were saying. I quoted that the supreme court agreed with that:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

[Cow Poke]

Common usage at the times Sparko, common arms used by the people at the time were muskets.

Which was pretty equivalent to what the government they were opposing had. Today, it's a whole 'nuther world.

[JimL]

Which was pretty equivalent to what the government they were opposing had. Today, it's a whole 'nuther world.

Yes, today we should all have a right to possess nuclear missles, stealth bombers, etc etc. etc. You know, like Sparko says, it should be unlimited, right?