3 ms·

No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito al

No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

notch656a 4y ago
I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  I am simply pointing to extensive case law affirmed by the Supreme Court that the right to bears arms in almost universally held to not be unlimited, which I agree with as do most even staunch conservatives. There may be a disagreement on how limited the right is but your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    In my experience the nuclear arms argument is almost exclusively used to try and get the counterparty to admit somehow infringements are legitimate. It's an attempt to paint the counterparty as extremist, when perhaps you mean more directly to accuse the writers of the 2nd amendment as extremists (and they were). > your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority. I'm not asserting nuclear arms shouldn't be "regulated." I'm asserting the method by which their regulation is legitimate, in my opinion, would be a constitutional amendment. You're attempt to paint me as an "extremist" is predicated on the false assumption that I've argued nuclear arms should not be regulated at all, when in fact my only assertion is that any regulation should be done in a way that makes it evident to the reader of the amendment that they are not protected.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      The reason the nuclear arms argument is used is because its a logical argument and breaks through the ridiculous assumption that the second amendment in an unlimited right. Do you or do you not believe the right to bear a nuclear arm should be infringed? Its sounds like (I think) yes you do believe it should be infringed but disagree with the current laws technical implementation. You are an extremist in that most people agree with the current law and do not think a new constitutional amendment is needed to regulate nuclear arms.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Can we separate this into 1) Whether nuclear arms ought to be regulated and 2) IF it is to be done, how can it be done legally. I think we can answer (2) without the prejudice of opinion of (1). My opinion on (2) would be the right to bear arms should not be infringed until the constitution is amended to state the right to bear <whatever words have the effect of excluding nuclear arms> shall not be infringed. I believe there would be little political difficulty in passing an amendment excluding nuclear arms, and if it helps us depend much less on implicit interpretation then it's good for everyone. Hopefully it would shut down some of these gotchas that try to drive a wedge in towards legitimizing other infringements by trying to get the counterparty to relent banning of nukes is constitutional under the currently written constitution (not saying that's your argument precisely, but I've seen it a lot).

notch656a 4y ago

I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.

SigmundA 4y ago
I am simply pointing to extensive case law affirmed by the Supreme Court that the right to bears arms in almost universally held to not be unlimited, which I agree with as do most even staunch conservatives. There may be a disagreement on how limited the right is but your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.
- notch656a 4y ago
  In my experience the nuclear arms argument is almost exclusively used to try and get the counterparty to admit somehow infringements are legitimate. It's an attempt to paint the counterparty as extremist, when perhaps you mean more directly to accuse the writers of the 2nd amendment as extremists (and they were). > your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority. I'm not asserting nuclear arms shouldn't be "regulated." I'm asserting the method by which their regulation is legitimate, in my opinion, would be a constitutional amendment. You're attempt to paint me as an "extremist" is predicated on the false assumption that I've argued nuclear arms should not be regulated at all, when in fact my only assertion is that any regulation should be done in a way that makes it evident to the reader of the amendment that they are not protected.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    The reason the nuclear arms argument is used is because its a logical argument and breaks through the ridiculous assumption that the second amendment in an unlimited right. Do you or do you not believe the right to bear a nuclear arm should be infringed? Its sounds like (I think) yes you do believe it should be infringed but disagree with the current laws technical implementation. You are an extremist in that most people agree with the current law and do not think a new constitutional amendment is needed to regulate nuclear arms.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Can we separate this into 1) Whether nuclear arms ought to be regulated and 2) IF it is to be done, how can it be done legally. I think we can answer (2) without the prejudice of opinion of (1). My opinion on (2) would be the right to bear arms should not be infringed until the constitution is amended to state the right to bear <whatever words have the effect of excluding nuclear arms> shall not be infringed. I believe there would be little political difficulty in passing an amendment excluding nuclear arms, and if it helps us depend much less on implicit interpretation then it's good for everyone. Hopefully it would shut down some of these gotchas that try to drive a wedge in towards legitimizing other infringements by trying to get the counterparty to relent banning of nukes is constitutional under the currently written constitution (not saying that's your argument precisely, but I've seen it a lot).