Originally Posted by gc70
Regardless of absolute language, one person's right tends to end when it clashes with another person's right. If the Second Amendment was really applied as an absolute, I could set up a target stand and use your house as a backstop for target practice - something that you might rightfully find objectionable.
Oh no you couldn't, and the validity of the 2nd Amendment has little to nothing to do or say about it. The 2A guarantees us the right the Keep" and "bear" arms. The 2A in no way conveys or guarantees to anyone a RIGHT to shoot on or at the property or person of anyone else.
This actually IS analogous to the fire in a crowded theater example. It is not illegal per se
to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. However, it is illegal (in most places) to falsely incite panic. So, as your right to free speech is not "limited by" but is subject to ancillary regulations pertaining to the maintenance of order in society, the same is true of the 2A. And I'm absolutely certain that the Founders would never have envisioned the RKBA as in any way guaranteeing a license to do harm to another person's person or property.
Using my house for target practice quite simply has nothing to do with the 2A.
As to Tom's example of Justice Holmes and anti-draft literature, I'll play. Justice Holmes was clearly wrong, and ruling based on a political agenda rather than the Constitution. In fact, the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech was to ensure that citizens would NOT be punished for speaking out with views that run counter to those of the government.