Reply #296: Too Bad You Don't Like My Responses [View All]

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Just to remind you what the question was, let me repeat what you asked: ' "How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

There are indeed, as I have responded "condtions, qualify (sic) and limits' on the right.

You respond: 'First, you didn't come close to answering the question.'

Hhummm .... that was an answer. You just didn't like it.

You write: 'Second, no one is arguing for an absolute right interpretation, . . . Just that legitimate restrictions on the right to arms are found by examining the principles behind why the right was secured, not in any shifting, moldable misconstructions "interpreting" restrictions, qualifications and conditions from the lexicon of the provision itself. '

Well....we are indeed getting somewhere when you say there can be 'legitimate restrictions on the right.'

Now let's go back to that question: '"How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

Judicial rulings are based on the interpretation of those words, which means, there can indeed be restrictions and gosh.... yes..... 'conditions and limits' to use your words on those rights.

Now, let's look at that case law of yours: 'Aymette at 158:

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

WOW- thanks for that!! If the object (big word) is for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and the "PEOPLE IN A BODY", your case certainly does nothing to further the claim the Second Amendment is for an INDIVIDUAL right as some have claimed.