anygunanywhere wrote:boomerang wrote:The OP is free to clarify whether they meant infringement of RKBA like in the subject or if they only wanted to know about firearm confiscation.
centex aggie wrote:thanks fellers
The OP posted after Liberty and I posted our responses. As I read his response above, he was fine with what Liberty and I posted. This was before the hullabaloo was initiated.
Anygunanywhere
Well, I don't think that is what the thread is intended to be about. And there are a couple of posts just below the ones you cite, including one from the OP that seem to support my position. So it may not be exactly clear what the OP was talking about.
Maybe he should clarify it.
And be it noted that I have posted references to some instances where governments
have exercised prior restraint upon 2A rights in the aftermath of natural disasters and/or civil unrest, which is what I think the OP was really trying to get at.
But in case you are right, I will now use the thread to point out that all those absolutist assertions about the 2A are a mass of legal and constitutional baloney. That they are supported by no court , constitutional scholars, or case law. Nor will they ever be supported by any court, constitutional scholar or case law. And the reason for that is that, like all other "unlimited" rights, they lead to absurd conclusions that society would never want and would never support. (I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports. MP-5's are just so cool. I love 'em. So controllable for a full auto. 3 round bursts are best, but spraying a whole 40 round clip of hollowpoints at a bunch of watermelons is something everyone should do at least once. Yeee-haw! I think they'd sell like hotcakes. And if the machine was right at the loading gate, I'd be able to charge a nice premium over MSRP, 'cause at that point I'd be the only game in town. )
And furthermore, I will also state that it is my opinion that holding forth with (absolutist) assertions like that damages the credibility of the pro gun rights movement and simply provides ammunition to its enemies that pro gun rights advocates are not to be listened to or taken seriously.
That's why none of the pro-Heller briefs attempted to argue for the absolutist position. In court, it's a certain loser and they well know it. If they had argued from the absolutist position, the whole case would have blown up in their faces. Indeed, it never would have gotten to the Supreme Court to begin with.
So there you have it.
