Judges were making decisions on handguns and whether guns should be required to have locks of this hampered their use in home defence etc. I am perfectly capable of reading what was written, know enough history to know my way of understanding it is how it was understood then and for most of the time it had existed. Now, I am sick of these squirrels chasing around a tree trunk arguments so I'll do my best to scramble my password so I can't recover it. I have no idea what the password was for the email I used to create this account. I had a realisation again today I could have been using what mind I have left on more important things for other people. So I'll do that for a while instead.
Good luck. I hope to never read a thing from you again, and I mean that in the most positive sense. Trying to kick this message board habit is tough. I wish you well. Now go help some real people
Funny you should mention that, I have questioned myself the last few weeks, was even contemplating doing a “MaximumPossibleSuffering” and quietly ending my time here at my 5000 post awhile back. But being in the middle of the elections kept my interest. The questions that brought me to ET and these boards were answered years and years ago, since then time here has been simple orneriness and poking fun but lately the boards for me have grown tiresome and futile. To everyone here if I’ve offended you, I sincerely apologize, wish everyone success. @Bugenhagen, of all the posters who’ve given me the what for, your replies and banter I’ve enjoyed. I hope you find what you’re looking for. @Barron & Magna, Thank you. Ciao.
Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Scalia' opinion for the Court in Heller v District of Columbia wherin you will find under III , pg 54: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou-tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See especially what follows the above Quote.
What does this have to do with my post or, indeed, the thread. In Heller, as your quote makes clear, the Court held that that D.C. requiring Heller to maintain his handgun at home in an inoperative state was a violation of his right. Why not read Heller and then get back to us. The thread has to do with whether firearm regulation in general is an "infringement" on one's second amendment right. In general it is not. But certain kinds of regulation are, according to the Court, not permissible. Thus a portion of the D.C. regulation was struck down.
Supreme Court decided a long time ago Bill of Rights can be limited by proper governmment authority and has been upheld by the Supreme Courts over many decades.... there is no absolute right to own a gun in the U.S.
Actually, there is. Just because activist courts and legislatures have seen fit to codify infringement of 2nd amendment rights, does not make them correct. Bottom line---US Citizens have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.