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  
•       •       •

5957 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jul 2012 at 9:33 PM (2 years 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 10:41:17 PM

Farker Soze: They did their time, why keep punishing them?


'Cause it's funny?
 
2012-07-29 10:41:25 PM

Farker Soze: vygramul: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.

That's two states too many then.


I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.
 
2012-07-29 10:42:25 PM

GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?


Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.
 
2012-07-29 10:42:44 PM

StoneColdAtheist: FTFA: "Such originalism is a dangerous distortion of 21st-Century reality. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of a "well-regulated militia" armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today's weapon technology. Arguably, the full extent of alleged gunman James Holmes' munitions could have easily decimated an entire brigade of musketeers before they'd even loaded their first ball."

You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.

FYI, the Founding Fathers intended that private persons be sufficiently well armed and equipped to fend off tyranny, including when it came from their own government. (Though I suspect we aren't going to see Scalia signing up to that.)

So in comparison to the situation facing the Founding Fathers, law abiding, mentally competent adults in this country should be able to "keep and bear" fully automatic military rifles, light machine guns and other hand-held arms.


Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well. I think you are right, and Scalia is torturing logic to the extreme.
 
2012-07-29 10:43:47 PM

GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?


Honestly, you'd have to ask someone much better versed in case law than I am. I seriously doubt that question hasn't come up before though.
 
2012-07-29 10:44:40 PM

StoneColdAtheist: You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.


Define better armed: a musket can be fired and reloaded much faster, also had a bayonett which is kind of nice to have in close combat.
 
2012-07-29 10:45:03 PM
You people aren't getting what the 2nd is really about. Strangely enough, Penn and Teller got it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

/Sorry about the non clickable link, I'm on my phone
 
2012-07-29 10:46:37 PM

RyogaM: Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well.


Ya' know, I would quit my job in a heartbeat if I could be a privateer. Even better would be to have the US govt. give me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Canadian ships. I'd take their Tim Horton's away from them and mock them.
 
2012-07-29 10:46:46 PM

vygramul: GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?

Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.


"Fark those guys."
 
2012-07-29 10:47:03 PM

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


Kentucky. Possibly New Hampsire, Louisiana, Colorado, and other states too.

In many states you can own anything if you have the money and a deep abiding love of paperwork. In virtually every state you could build a gauss rifle, or the like AFAIK. As rapid prototype machines become ever more mainstream, states are going to have to be MORE like Kentucky in this respect; there's just not going to be a workable other choice.
 
2012-07-29 10:48:23 PM

PacManDreaming: RyogaM: Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well.

Ya' know, I would quit my job in a heartbeat if I could be a privateer. Even better would be to have the US govt. give me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Canadian ships. I'd take their Tim Horton's away from them and mock them.


I'll sign on to be your cabin boy!
 
2012-07-29 10:48:34 PM

sendtodave: What, you think he's actually a strict constructionist just because he says he is?


I judge people by their own standards. Call yourself a strict Constitutionalists? I'm going to hold you to it. More fun to destroy people by their own standards.

Fail in Human Form: Honestly, you'd have to ask someone much better versed in case law than I am. I seriously doubt that question hasn't come up before though.


I don't think it's legal, but in our crime control mad country it is.

vygramul: I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.


I was avoiding a specific racial tone on purpose, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of the permanent right losses due to felonies were more common in the South, to target blacks.

vygramul: Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.


I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.
 
2012-07-29 10:49:19 PM

Farker Soze: s2s2s2: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

There is parole and probation. Once these are done, why keep punishing them? Cruel and unusual and such.


It's certainly not unusual. And again, it's not that we keep punishing them, it's that they didn't avail themselves of the information ahead of time. If you don't want this shiat to happen to you, for the rest of your life, don't do crime.
 
2012-07-29 10:49:43 PM

RyogaM: stenciledb: Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.

You are aware that, according to Scalia, the Constitution says that it is unconstitutional for Washington D.C. to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic handguns, but not unconstitutional to restrict the ownership of fully-automatic handguns and rifles, right? Which is a "rewriting" of the 2nd amendment, which you accuse others of doing?


I encourage people to rewrite the constitution. It was set up to be rewritten. Do it right. What does that other case have to do with what he said here? I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said here, unless you are implying that he is inconsistent?
 
2012-07-29 10:51:35 PM

GAT_00: That was someone else responding to you. I don't have an alt, and do you really think I use other logins? Who else have you seen arguing the same position as me to be an alt?


My apologies. I did indeed err.
 
2012-07-29 10:51:47 PM

GAT_00: I judge people by their own standards. Call yourself a strict Constitutionalists? I'm going to hold you to it. More fun to destroy people by their own standards.


You think these guys have standards? That they care if they're hypocrites? Who cares?

They have power!
 
2012-07-29 10:53:14 PM

vygramul: Farker Soze: vygramul: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.

That's two states too many then.

I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.


Same with firearms. Sure, there are plenty of violent felons who have forfeited their right, but plenty of non-violent people with drug charges being denied self-protection, who are especially in need now that other criminals know that he might have drugs and cannot legally be armed.
 
2012-07-29 10:54:11 PM

GAT_00: How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Because "permanent" isn't necessarily "excessive".
 
2012-07-29 10:54:45 PM
Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.
 
2012-07-29 10:55:03 PM

sendtodave: You think these guys have standards?


He meant "Alleged" standards. "The flag you fly", and all.
 
2012-07-29 10:55:36 PM

GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.


One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.
 
2012-07-29 10:56:57 PM

s2s2s2: My apologies. I did indeed err.


It's OK, I just don't get why I of all people get accused of it. Come on, if anything I've demonstrated that I stand quite alone in the last month.

s2s2s2: Because "permanent" isn't necessarily "excessive".


How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?
 
2012-07-29 10:59:12 PM

GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?


Because they are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings. We have death sentences and life sentences. Permanent is normal.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:03 PM

vygramul: GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.

One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.


You know what I would do with all people getting out of jail? Offer EVERYONE, across the board, a place to live and a job, guaranteed when you leave prison for say, two years. Free access to anything like getting a GRE, technical classes, any of it. Job can be minimum wage, and you can be fired for failure to follow rules, but not fired without cause. The idea is to give everyone a chance to put themselves back on their feet. It's the reason people end up back in jail - they have nowhere to go and no opportunity.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:56 PM

vygramul: was saying the argument that the founders couldn't foresee modern weapons applies equally to modern communications.


OK, it just seemed an odd thing to throw out there... Either one is a poor argument in favor of curtailing rights, that's for sure.
 
2012-07-29 11:01:01 PM

stenciledb: RyogaM: stenciledb: Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.

You are aware that, according to Scalia, the Constitution says that it is unconstitutional for Washington D.C. to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic handguns, but not unconstitutional to restrict the ownership of fully-automatic handguns and rifles, right? Which is a "rewriting" of the 2nd amendment, which you accuse others of doing?

I encourage people to rewrite the constitution. It was set up to be rewritten. Do it right. What does that other case have to do with what he said here? I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said here, unless you are implying that he is inconsistent?


Yes, he is inconsistent, completely and totally, and is rewriting the constitution to fit his predetermined view that the 2nd Amendment allows only hand-held weapons, a view not supported in any way by the text of the Constitution or any writings or the original authors. He is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he tortures logic to make the 2nd Amendment mean what he wants it to say, even if that means gun rights are infringed.

I agree, the 2nd amendment should be amended properly, so we don't have to suffer the tortured logic of Scalia and his brethren,
 
2012-07-29 11:01:08 PM

GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?


Real world scenario: A Sandusky type is released on good behavior. Should he be allowed to be around at risk youth?
 
2012-07-29 11:01:25 PM

s2s2s2: GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?

Because they are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings. We have death sentences and life sentences. Permanent is normal.


Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.
 
2012-07-29 11:02:13 PM

s2s2s2: GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?

Real world scenario: A Sandusky type is released on good behavior. Should he be allowed to be around at risk youth?


Yes, if the system actually was designed to rehabilitate, they should.
 
2012-07-29 11:02:22 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.


The ATF can only inspect you if you have an FFL. Otherwise they must get a warrant like everyone else.
 
2012-07-29 11:03:11 PM

RyogaM: the tortured logic of Scalia


His logic is "These words clearly mean 'this' because, ya know; 'grammar.' " What is tortured about that?
 
2012-07-29 11:03:51 PM
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.


There are a lot of things that make Scalia a terrible Supreme Court Justice and an even worse human being, but this isn't one of them.
 
2012-07-29 11:03:59 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.


Yes, but all those hoops you mentioned would be unconstitutional infringements on the right to bear arms if we actually followed the letter of the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-07-29 11:04:05 PM

GAT_00: Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.


[citationplz]

Is that the only crime on the books, detective?
 
2012-07-29 11:05:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves,


They didn't mean "state" as in Idaho or Florida, or Texas, etc... They meant "state" as in the entire country(A nation can also be called a 'state'.). They also meant it in the idea of protecting it from itself. In other words, we protect the nation by ensuring that no gun-grabbing asshole takes control and robs us of our freedoms at gunpoint.
 
2012-07-29 11:05:50 PM

s2s2s2: GAT_00: Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.

[citationplz]

Is that the only crime on the books, detective?


Right, I forgot, I'm not allowed to give examples without 50 trillion citations to prove I didn't make something up, but to demand any from you is like farking treason or something.
 
2012-07-29 11:07:37 PM
Funny that he mentions cannons. Cannons are exactly what the lobsterbacks were out to find and confiscate in Concord before they got their asses handed to them, and chased all the way back to Boston. Cannon is what the Tory cur was most concerned about.

So, who kept the cannons after the Revolutionary War? IOW, who would have been allowed to keep cannons?

Was it legal for a private citizen to own a cannon in 1789? To stockpile then current military hardware?

Did every town have like an Elks club where they kept cannon?

I can't think of anything more farking American than shooting somebody who tries to take your cannon away.
 
2012-07-29 11:07:38 PM
Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?
 
2012-07-29 11:08:30 PM

Nabb1: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?


Congress was granted the right to raise an army AFTER the Constitution was written...for precisely that reason: There was no way to ensure conscripts and state militia would stay with the army. The Continental Congress had no rights that they could enforce--do you not know your own history?

In the Whiskey Rebellion...the states mobilized their own militias at Washington's request. (The Militia Acts of 1792) The only "standing army" at the time was the Legion of the US, which was an Indian fighting unit, developed solely to fight the Seminoles and Cherokee. There was no standing army--despite Congress's mandate to create one--until well after that, when the War of 1812 proved the need for a standing navy.

The militias were the standing army, hence, "the people" had to be ready to mobilize as such when needed. Now that we have a standing army (and Navy, Air Force and Marines), I repeat my former statement, which is that "the people" aren't going to be defending their states if they need to. Maybe they used to, but they WON'T NOW, so that is the weakest possible argument for a citizen's right to bear arms.
 
2012-07-29 11:09:25 PM

GAT_00: Right, I forgot, I'm not allowed to give examples without 50 trillion citations to prove I didn't make something up, but to demand any from you is like farking treason or something.


No No. We have the courts for this reason. I would hope that more often than not, if someone loses there voting rights, the crime was something more severe (Like the kind of shiat that does real harm[aka WhiteCollar]).


/WTH am I doing{with these thingies}?
 
2012-07-29 11:10:11 PM

Captain_Ballbeard: Was it legal for a private citizen to own a cannon in 1789? To stockpile then current military hardware?


Yes. In fact, private militias were not uncommon on the frontier.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:18 PM

buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?


Yeah, they just don't stop there.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:34 PM
Remember when gun nut freaks could dismiss this as hyperbole from sensible citizens that advocate gun control?
 
2012-07-29 11:12:23 PM

GAT_00: vygramul: GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.

One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.

You know what I would do with all people getting out of jail? Offer EVERYONE, across the board, a place to live and a job, guaranteed when you leave prison for say, two years. Free access to anything like getting a GRE, technical classes, any of it. Job can be minimum wage, and you can be fired for failure to follow rules, but not fired without cause. The idea is to give everyone a chance to put themselves back on their feet. It's the reason people end up back in jail - they have nowhere to go and no opportunity.


Sounds good to me. Oversight is key to prevent employeer abuse, but yes.
 
2012-07-29 11:12:25 PM

RyogaM: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.

Yes, but all those hoops you mentioned would be unconstitutional infringements on the right to bear arms if we actually followed the letter of the 2nd amendment.


So what? That ship has sailed. No court is going to overturn NFA34 or GCA68. You have the rot to keep and bear arms. Nobody said what kind of arms you were allowed to keep and bear, however. Gun control has been around for generations, all the courts are doing now is staking out how far it can go, saying that the power to control does not encompass the power to ban. But it will always be there in some capacity.
 
2012-07-29 11:12:52 PM

buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?


Doesn't matter. It could state "Tin roof sundae being the tastiest of all ice cream, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the meaning wouldn't change.
 
2012-07-29 11:14:53 PM

vygramul: Sounds good to me. Oversight is key to prevent employeer abuse, but yes.


Yeah, the system is pretty open to abuse. The Job Creator assumes nobody will trust the felon and makes them do all kinds of shiat. Seems better to have the state be the employer.

s2s2s2: No No. We have the courts for this reason. I would hope that more often than not, if someone loses there voting rights, the crime was something more severe (Like the kind of shiat that does real harm[aka WhiteCollar]).


I can't tell if this is serious or not.
 
2012-07-29 11:15:56 PM

s2s2s2: RyogaM: the tortured logic of Scalia

His logic is "These words clearly mean 'this' because, ya know; 'grammar.' " What is tortured about that?


Really? Scalia says we have a right to guns we can bear, you know, carry in our arms. Except, by the way, probably not fully-automatic guns, even if they can be carried. Because, no one conceived of the idea of fully-automatic guns at the rectification of the 2nd. Oh, and let's ignore that we had private ownership of ships with as many cannons as they could hold as well. Scalia is not "following the rules of grammar." He is torturing logic to reach his preferred outcome, that is, that semi-automatic, not fully automatic, handguns, and not rifles, are protected by the 2nd. And yes, this is based on his decision in Heller. And here, he doesn't say that hand-held missiles are definitely protected by virtue of being bearable, but that would need to be decided. If he is just following the rules of grammar, then, of course they would be protected. As would a suitcase nuke.
 
2012-07-29 11:17:22 PM

Mikey1969: Gyrfalcon: The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves,

They didn't mean "state" as in Idaho or Florida, or Texas, etc... They meant "state" as in the entire country(A nation can also be called a 'state'.). They also meant it in the idea of protecting it from itself. In other words, we protect the nation by ensuring that no gun-grabbing asshole takes control and robs us of our freedoms at gunpoint.


It didn't used to, though.

The Thirteen Colonies pretty well figured they'd be separate nations, unified by common goals. If you don't think that's true, read the original Articles of Confederation, with special attention to what a "confederacy" really is. The original idea was that the states were each separate unto themselves and would only unite to face a common enemy, after which they'd disband.

Also see where something similar happened to the ACTUAL"Confederacy" where when faced with a common enemy, the states promptly sat on their own militias for defense of their STATE...not their country.

Which is only proof the Constitution cannot and should not be interpreted the way it was written, but the way it applies to modern times.
 
2012-07-29 11:19:30 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: RyogaM: Adolf Oliver Nipples:

So what? That ship has sailed. No court is going to overturn NFA34 or GCA68. You have the rot to keep and bear arms. Nobody said what kind of arms you were allowed to keep and bear, however. Gun control has been around for generations, all the courts are doing now is staking out how far it can go, saying that the power to control does not encompass the power to ban. But it will always be there in some capacity.


I agree with you 100%.
 
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