If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Justice Scalia: "The right of a 16-year old to keep and bear rocket launchers shall not be infringed"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 401
    More: Scary, Justice Antonin Scalia, originalisms, Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, Technological escalation, supreme court justices, second amendment  
•       •       •

5956 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jul 2012 at 9:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



401 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-29 04:52:32 PM
I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.
 
2012-07-29 05:03:23 PM
Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?
 
2012-07-29 05:05:19 PM
 
2012-07-29 05:09:19 PM
Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!
 
2012-07-29 05:26:38 PM

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


hehe You won the thread.
 
2012-07-29 05:28:23 PM
May they aim and fire them at you, Mr. Justice?
 
2012-07-29 05:29:36 PM

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


bwahah
 
2012-07-29 05:47:43 PM

Happy Hours: If I had a rocket launcher, some son of a biatch would pay


That's why at least Canadians should have gun control
 
2012-07-29 05:48:05 PM
A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"
 
2012-07-29 05:51:30 PM

vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"


I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.
 
2012-07-29 06:00:19 PM

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"
 
2012-07-29 06:20:20 PM

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


From your local National Guard Armory or nearest Army/Marines base.

Oh, you said legally? Well, I guess if Scalia can make this magic happen you can go here:

Just use your paypal account.
 
2012-07-29 06:40:03 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, the rational gun position.
 
2012-07-29 06:47:28 PM

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


The permit fees are murder.
 
2012-07-29 06:54:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?

The permit fees are murder.


Tax stamps for a Law rocket launcher aren't that outrageous, the background check on the other hand....
 
2012-07-29 07:04:40 PM

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


We need NNS!
 
2012-07-29 07:29:22 PM
It seems what he said was that the original intent of the restriction to handheld/carryable arms has to be looked at again because we now have the capability for handheld/carryable weapons with the kind of destructive capabilities that we wanted restricted, i.e. rocket/grenade launchers .
 
2012-07-29 07:32:05 PM

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


images.wikia.com

Simpson! It's Toys for Guns!
 
2012-07-29 07:52:47 PM
I don't know who's worse, Scalia or Thomas.

Just as an aside, is it normal for sitting justices to appear on news programs like this?
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 08:10:35 PM

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


It's the ammo that would be scarce. You'd need a Form 4 for each rocket...

Marcus Aurelius: The permit fees are murder.


There's no such thing as a "permit" for NFA items. You pay a tax for it to be transferred to you.
 
2012-07-29 08:20:01 PM
Frankly, I'm in favor of anything that gives Americans more ability to kill each other.

/So vote Republican.
 
2012-07-29 08:25:47 PM

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


I think we should mandate suitcase nukes.
 
2012-07-29 08:29:20 PM
This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.
 
2012-07-29 08:37:51 PM

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.
 
2012-07-29 08:40:17 PM

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"


Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?
 
2012-07-29 08:42:05 PM
Back in 1996 in a speech at Catholic University, Scalia said that people "have the right to bear arms, not to drive them.".

He should really go back to his original intent.
 
2012-07-29 08:43:36 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.
 
2012-07-29 08:45:24 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Back in 1996 in a speech at Catholic University, Scalia said that people "have the right to bear arms, not to drive them.".

He should really go back to his original intent.


He wasn't getting paid by the Koch brothers back then.
 
2012-07-29 08:46:47 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


Aren't felons prevented from owning weapons? Then how has Congress not already restricted the privileged? For your argument to be logically consistent, Congress would have to make it illegal to deny weapons to felons, Federal or state level.
 
2012-07-29 09:28:34 PM

WalkingCarpet: I don't know who's worse, Scalia or Thomas.

Just as an aside, is it normal for sitting justices to appear on news programs like this?


Thomas. There are times even Scalia isn't as conservative as Thomas.
 
2012-07-29 09:30:43 PM

vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.


Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.
 
2012-07-29 09:37:05 PM

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Ah, the things one can learn watching "Pawn Stars."
 
2012-07-29 09:38:20 PM

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Yeah, I used to have an FFL and the approved list of weapons included 76mm howitzers.
 
2012-07-29 09:38:38 PM
Americans killing Americans,Mexicans killing Mexicans.
I say let them be so that they can do it and when no one is left Canada will claim North America
 
2012-07-29 09:39:09 PM

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


encrypted-tbn2.google.com

Kinda disproves you...

/oh wait? you said popular.
//nevermind then.
 
2012-07-29 09:39:25 PM

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Well yeah. By the time you reloaded it the cops have either given you high speed lead poisoning or have zap your ass enough times to power the Delorean
 
2012-07-29 09:40:38 PM
According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]


This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.
 
2012-07-29 09:42:04 PM

vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.


What? You mean he is using his "originalism" to make up BS justifications for how he wants to rule in the first place? *boggle*
 
2012-07-29 09:42:30 PM
When Scalia talks of the Founding Fathers he acts like they were all of one mind. The Constitution was a great compromise so I imagine the individual opinions of the signers would probably reflect a variety of opinions on most issues. Which Founding Fathers do we heed? Do we poll them perhaps through a national seance? And just who is a Founding father? If only those who wrote the Constitution then Jefferson is out. men like Thomas Paine had great influence but Paine was neither a signer of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Personally I think Scalia takes his position because he knows it's a big cop-out; hiding behind the presumed thoughts of others long dead.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:01 PM
Teacher: What do you want to be when you grow up Tommy?
American 5 year old: Jack Bauer
Teacher: That's nice dear. Oh, one second.
Teacher walks to principals office
Teacher: Get homeland security down here, we have another one
 
2012-07-29 09:44:06 PM

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


Wow! If that counts, then me losing my virginity to Black Cat in jr. high TOTALLY COUNTS!! WOOHOO!!!
 
2012-07-29 09:44:23 PM

Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.


But he says he doesn't make shiat up, so that makes it ok.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:27 PM

SN1987a goes boom: /oh wait? you said popular.


Yeah. Although you could use Randian arguments vis a vis Bioshock and be coherent. You could also use them from Sword of Truth the TV series. They did a good job casting that one.
 
2012-07-29 09:46:22 PM
Civilians can legally own explosive devices and automatic weapons but they are heavily regulated. Rocket launches, assuming we get a ruling saying they are legal to own, would almost certainly be regulated in the same way. Meaning, enthusiasts who have a lot of money will have them but they will be out of reach to most people including most criminals.
 
2012-07-29 09:47:36 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 09:48:03 PM

Nabb1: Ah, the things one can learn watching "Pawn Stars."


Nope, more like the things you can learn when one of your friends is a gun dealer and historical re-enactor.
 
2012-07-29 09:48:15 PM
I have to admire Scalia. Anyone that can be so brazenly shameless while proudly mixing in the finer points of a prideful douchebag on a daily basis has to work at it. The amount of focus and self-discipline required is simply off the charts.

Shine on, you asshole.
 
2012-07-29 09:48:52 PM
This fits with the current N.R.A.'s talking points: "The AK-47 is the musket of today" -- they say.

I get "original intent", i even respect it... it should be consistent.

but he and Thomas apply it in a completely inconsistent manner.

A musket is a musket -- the AK-47 is nothing close to it.

And a rocket launcher is a sophisticated cannon that is scaled down.
 
2012-07-29 09:49:42 PM
And the Fark lib fascist brigade continues to demand that congress ignore the Constitution and further restrict individual freedoms. Just like they do every single farking day.

/nothing to see here. It's the same stupid shiat from this crowd every day.
 
2012-07-29 09:49:47 PM

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


"The ends justify the means" is a terrible way to determine legality.
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report