XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.guns

Rudy Canoza <notgenx33@gmail.com> wrote in news:fKrRK.438164$BKL8.405809@fx15.iad:

On 9/5/2022 11:42 AM, David Hartung wrote:

On 9/5/22 11:52, Rudy Canoza wrote:

On 9/5/2022 9:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:

On 9/5/22 09:30, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 07:29:42 -0500, David Hartung
<david@Hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/4/22 22:28, Mitchell Holman wrote:

David Hartung <david@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9CcnQLv4Oro84n-nZ2dnZfqn_vNnZ2d@giganews.com:

On 9/3/22 20:24, Rudy Canoza wrote:

On 9/3/2022 9:04 AM, David Hartung wrote:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/09/ >>>>>>>>>> 01/iowa
ns-vote-whether-add-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-constitution-g >>>>>>>>>> un-righ ts/10308509002/


[...]
Iowans will vote this fall on whether to add the right "to >>>>>>>>>> keep and bear arms" to the state's constitution — adding >>>>>>>>>> language that would go beyond the protections contained in >>>>>>>>>> the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Supporters say the amendment is necessary to protect Iowans' >>>>>>>>>> rights from infringement, while opponents say passing the
amendment would make it easier to strike down existing gun >>>>>>>>>> laws and make it harder to pass new regulations.

Republicans in the Iowa Legislature have worked for years to >>>>>>>>>> place the measure on the 2022 ballot, where it must be
approved by a majority of Iowa voters in the Nov. 8 election >>>>>>>>>> in order to be added to the state's constitution.
[...]
The language of the proposed amendment states: "The right of >>>>>>>>>> the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The >>>>>>>>>> sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to >>>>>>>>>> be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions >>>>>>>>>> of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."
[...]

One wonders about the "inherent" limitations Rudy likes to >>>>>>>>>> talk about.

They would still be there.  The right is left undefined, and >>>>>>>>> we *know* that rights have limits.

Yes rights have limits, but what are those limits and how are
they determined?

      As someone who claims that there are
no limits to gun ownership why don't you
tell us?

I thought that you would never ask.

As I understand, the inherent limits to rights are how those
rights are exercised. In my exercise of my rights I may not harm
another. I may own any weapon I wish, but I may not use those
weapons to harm my neighbor.

So, you can have a nuke as long as you don't use it?  You can
have full auto rifles and SAMs?

When one breaks out the "nuke" argument, I know that they have
nothing.

No.  You don't have a right to nuclear arms or to rocket propelled
grenades. This is settled.

The Constitution says otherwise.

No, it does not — not in any way. The Constitution doesn't say a
word about the limits of the right. Judges are the ones who say.

The constitution intentionally does not set a limit. As it does not, the
right is presumed to be infinite or unlimited.

Attempting to establish a limit exceeds the authority of a judge. It's judicial arrogance at the worst.

I can legally have a rocket-propelled grenade and launcher if I am willing
to pay the price. The constitution has nothing to do with that type of ownership, federal law regulates it. Arguing otherwise is ignorance.

I can legally build a nuclear reactor in my back yard and
incidentally produce weapons grade reactor plutonium if I so desire.
Would I want to do such a thing? Probably not. I have better things to
do.

The constitution has nothing to do with that type of innovation and
ownership, federal law and other agencies permit it. Arguing otherwise is ignorance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)