Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

[PratchettFan]

Weapons grade nerve gas, botulism spores, nuclear warheads, HE bombs. Lot's of stuff are outside the limits.

None of those are firearms, so fair enough.
Anything else?

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

Do either of these types of firearms lie outside the inherent limits of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd?
If so, how?

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

The right to endanger others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

- - - unnecessarily.

 

[Idadunno]

Weapons grade nerve gas, botulism spores, nuclear warheads, HE bombs. Lot's of stuff are outside the limits.

None of those are firearms, so fair enough.
Anything else?

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

Do either of these types of firearms lie outside the inherent limits of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd?
If so, how?

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

Bazookas

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of those are firearms, so fair enough.
Anything else?

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

Do either of these types of firearms lie outside the inherent limits of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd?
If so, how?

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

The right to endanger others.

To place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - by discharging a firearm straight up into the air.
Like that -- right?

 

[PratchettFan]

If you want to restrict it to firearms, then it would depend upon the state. Fully automatic weapons I believe require special permits. I think sawed off shotguns are still prohibited.

Do either of these types of firearms lie outside the inherent limits of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd?
If so, how?

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

The right to endanger others.

To place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - by discharging a firearm straight up into the air.
Like that -- right?

Along those lines. Of course, that is open to interpretation - which is where the problems begin.

Take, for example, a .50 sniper rifle. I've fired one and I can attest that if I accidentally discharged one in my house the walls are not going to stop the round. So does such a rifle constitute an inherent danger to my neighbors? I have a friend who lives on a farm and the nearest neighbor is just over a mile away. Would it constitute an inherent danger for his neighbors. The answer might well be yes for me but no for him. Does that justify a limitation on access to the rifle?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do either of these types of firearms lie outside the inherent limits of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd?
If so, how?

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

The right to endanger others.

To place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - by discharging a firearm straight up into the air.
Like that -- right?

Along those lines. Of course, that is open to interpretation - which is where the problems begin.
Take, for example, a .50 sniper rifle. I've fired one and I can attest that if I accidentally discharged one in my house the walls are not going to stop the round. So does such a rifle constitute an inherent danger to my neighbors?

Your .30-06 hunting rifle will do the same, so no.

"Clear present and immediate danger" is not the same as "potential accidental discharge"; that simple possession/ownership of a firearm -might- lead to an accidental discharge no more justifies the limitation of said ownership/possession than the -possibility- of libel/slander justifies the limitation of reporting a news story.

 

[Darkwind]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Anti-gun loons like to repeat this or something similar quite a lot, as if it gives them something to stand on, not understanding the well- and long accepted tenet that all rights have inherent limits and that in the Heller decision, the court merely stated the obvious.

So... what is outside the limits of the right protected by the 2nd amendment?
Why do you think so?

Using a weapon indiscriminately is outside the rights of the 2nd Amendment. Owning them never is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Anti-gun loons like to repeat this or something similar quite a lot, as if it gives them something to stand on, not understanding the well- and long accepted tenet that all rights have inherent limits and that in the Heller decision, the court merely stated the obvious.

So... what is outside the limits of the right protected by the 2nd amendment?
Why do you think so?

Using a weapon indiscriminately is outside the rights of the 2nd Amendment. Owning them never is.

Can you describe this term with more detail?

 

[PratchettFan]

What do you mean "inherent limits"?

All rights have certain, inherent limits.
-The right to own property does not include the right to steal.
-The right to free speech does not include the right to libel, slander, of incite a riot.
-The right to free exercise of religion doe snot include human sacrifices
-The right to keep and bear arms does not include....?

The right to endanger others.

To place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - by discharging a firearm straight up into the air.
Like that -- right?

Along those lines. Of course, that is open to interpretation - which is where the problems begin.
Take, for example, a .50 sniper rifle. I've fired one and I can attest that if I accidentally discharged one in my house the walls are not going to stop the round. So does such a rifle constitute an inherent danger to my neighbors?

Your .30-06 hunting rifle will do the same, so no.

"Clear present and immediate danger" is not the same as "potential accidental discharge"; that simple possession/ownership of a firearm -might- lead to an accidental discharge no more justifies the limitation of said ownership/possession than the -possibility- of libel/slander justifies the limitation of reporting a news story.

No. It really won't do the same. I've fire both and they aren't the same. But I wasn't saying that it should be banned, only pointing out this is a matter open for interpretation. I personally think a limitation should meet two standards. First, it needs to actually impact the problem being addressed. Second, it needs to work. Most limitations meet neither standard. They are little more than propaganda.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone?
At all?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone?
Bueller?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Anti-gun loons like to repeat this or something similar quite a lot, as if it gives them something to stand on, not understanding the well- and long accepted tenet that all rights have inherent limits and that in the Heller decision, the court merely stated the obvious.

So... what is outside the limits of the right protected by the 2nd amendment?
Why do you think so?

Who knew Scalia was an "anti-gun loon."

The only thing obvious is your ignorance of the ruling and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The ruling was an admonishment to "gun rights" extremists that their wrongheaded notion that all firearm regulatory policies are "unconstitutional" is as a fact of law ridiculous and wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Anti-gun loons like to repeat this or something similar quite a lot, as if it gives them something to stand on, not understanding the well- and long accepted tenet that all rights have inherent limits and that in the Heller decision, the court merely stated the obvious.

So... what is outside the limits of the right protected by the 2nd amendment?
Why do you think so?

Who knew Scalia was an "anti-gun loon."
The only thing obvious is your ignorance of the ruling and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The ruling was an admonishment to "gun rights" extremists that their wrongheaded notion that all firearm regulatory policies are "unconstitutional" is as a fact of law ridiculous and wrong.

Nowhere in your blathering is found an answer to the question.
No surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still looking for sound responses...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny how anti-gun loons are happy to tell us that the 2nd is not unlimited, but refuse to engage in an honest conversation about those limits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently, there are NOT any limits on the 2nd amendment.
Who knew?