Yes, I read your sentence which did not match the quote I referenced.
Since my link was to THE OFFICIAL POSITION AS PUBLISHED BY SCOTUS and your's was paraphrased on a media website (which they edited to fit the article) which do you truely believe is correct? Would a photo help?
View attachment 67139937
Which, your source or mine, looks more 'official'?
I didn't say your source didn't look official, I said it wasn't relevant to Scalia's quote that I referenced.
Here is the context of his quote regarding the DC v Heller case, as well as the Supreme Court decision when they banned sawed-off shotguns in the US v Miller case:
"In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the federal government to criminalize possession of a sawed off shot-gun, because it was not a weapon suitable for a militia:…
If one were to stop here, the NRA's folklore may actually make sense. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that various rights held to be the most protected, including the right to religious exercise, speech, marriage and interstate travel, are still subject to reasonable regulation.
…
Scalia's opinion was most concerned with protecting the right of law abiding citizens to possess handguns and simple weapons in the home, not any gun in any place"
…
You still don’t see it…amazing!!! If you remove the ‘From Blackstone…that the right was’ from the portion I provided it is EXACTLY what you posted. Further, search the opinion for the phrase you posted…this is IT!... unless of course you can magically find another IN THE OPINION.
Ok, but sawed off shotguns are not in question in this thread…please explain the context as it relates to ‘assault rifles’
What you say its about, and what Scalia actually said do not match. That's the problem Again, here is his quote: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."
What do you think Scalia means by, "it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."
You missed the whole point. If the conservative court found that banning sawed off shotguns did not infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, than they might also find that Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are also not suitable for a home militia.
Theoretically but I think you are reading it wrong. A sawed off shotgun has a wider blast pattern and significantly shorter kill distance so that would render it not-suitable for militia because your enemy would have to be much much closer. A semi-auto with a high capacity magazine is more suitable for militia use than a shotgun or handgun because you can kill the enemy at a greater distance and have more rounds with which to engage combatants.
What you say its about, and what Scalia actually said do not match. That's the problem Again, here is his quote: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."
What do you think Scalia means by, "it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."
But I posted the section WHERE SCALIA ADDRESSED weapons you reference and their intended use by ‘militia’…You missed the whole point. If the conservative court found that banning sawed off shotguns did not infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, than they might also find that Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are also not suitable for a home militia.
I am suggesting no such thing, I am merely quoting what Scalia's opinion was, that he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment applies to "any weapon whatsoever".
If you just looked at sawed off shotguns that have been banned, I think what you say is plausible. However, machine guns were also banned, which were still being used by the military at the time. And then of course, assault type weapons and high capacity magazines themselves were banned for a decade without anyone being able to make one credible constitutional case against the ban during the entire decade.
Which is fine, people who are neutral on the issue don't have to know these things, people who don't want to own guns but don't interfere with my rights don't need to know this. The busybodies who don't know **** about weapons, their terminology, functionality, or any of the other basics need to learn these things, I don't like uninformed agendists ****ting on my rights. If they knew half of what they thought they knew they wouldn't hold the positions they do.
Dude, why continue to post erroneous crap? Sawed off shotguns and machine guns are not banned! Folks CAN own them legally! The 'hoops' (taxed registeration, extensive background checks, taxed transfer) to own one are much more onerous than more common firearms. If your argument is 'not everyone should own one' I will stipulate such as I believe most others, including Scalia since he said so, will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?