On 12/21/2012 1:58 PM, scooter lied:
> "Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:SPOdnXP4iMPaWUnNnZ2dnUVZ5s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/21/2012 11:41 AM, scooter lied:
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:auWdnTtCLvr3b07NnZ2dnUVZ5q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/20/2012 8:16 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2012 8:13 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
>>>>>> It's that simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
>>>> determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment
>>>> does not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have.
>>>> I suggest you start with Miller.
>>>
>>> Milller....Miller... I don't recall any Miller in the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> There isn't any mention of Miller in the second amendment itself, of
>> course.
>
> Then it doesn't govern what the 2nd Amendment says.

Of course it does!  The opinion of the court addressed what the second amendment
means.

>> The Miller decision of the SCOTUS supplies an interpretation -
>> controlling - that the second amendment does not preclude the
>> government limiting what arms you may own.
>
> Well, that's nice, but I'm missing the part of the Constitution where it
> says the government gets to decide what portions, if any, of the
> Constitution it will obey.

Red herring.

>> In other words, the second amendment does not recognize a "right" to
>> own *any* arm you might wish to own.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right.  The second amendment does not recognize a right to own just
whatever arms you might wish to own.  The amendment recognizes a right, which it
does not define, to arms.  The right that it recognizes is not a right to just
whatever arms you wish to have.  This is settled, scooter.