Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5958 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 11:19:43 PM  
So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?
 
2012-07-29 11:20:56 PM  
It's always been my understanding that "arms" is a term that applies to weapons with the ability to select a single target with some degree of reliability. Explosives and such fall under the category of ordnance, so by that definition, Scalia would be wrong. Of course, that's just my .02, based on that definition, and I don't know how steadfast that definition is.
 
2012-07-29 11:21:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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 th ...


Maybe he will once again argue against us by reference something that will completely show our point was right like he did last time.
 
2012-07-29 11:23:18 PM  

whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?


Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:05 PM  

Farker Soze: 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.


It's where I get sort of knotted up about the whole thing. If a man wanted to put meat on the family table back then, he needed a gun (or maybe not, if he was a trapper), or his family could just cultivate a couple acres and have all the veggies and fruit they wanted to eat. At the time, though, without a standing army, it was up to every household to participate in local defense, so every teen boy and man was expected to own a gun for the purpose of participating in the local, "well-regulated" militia, who would be expected to turn out and drill regularly under the command of the local militia leader. In that case, no man could be denied the right to bear arms, because each man was an integral part of community defense, and that couldn't be denied him.

I just don't think they ever could have envisioned drug wars and cartels, drive-bys, theater shooting maniacs, the NRA, cross-border gun sales stings, no-knock warrant shooting mistakes, and all manner of such idiocy we're seeing today.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:32 PM  

whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?


I personally don't think you can remove someone for being a shiatty judge. Scalia is horrible. Like I pointed out earlier, what he says he he just makes up an interpretation and then when questioned about it broader he then says it has special rules but it unable to come up with a justification for the reasoning and gives a sort of "I am not sure I can makes something up later" kind of thing.


I think it would be a very bad precedent to set to remove a judge because congress thought he was "wrong".

Now Thomas on the other hand I do believe should be removed basically because his wife takes money for "access". it's pretty much bribery. if he doesn't recuse himself from cases that his wife gets paid for he should be impeached.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:39 PM  
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear,.."

Is this the conventional interpretation? I thought 'bear' in the context of the constitution meant 'to own and wield'. This idea that the arms have to be hand-held is new to me.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:02 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.


Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:16 PM  

fozziewazzi: SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear,.."

Is this the conventional interpretation? I thought 'bear' in the context of the constitution meant 'to own and wield'. This idea that the arms have to be hand-held is new to me.


"bear" generally means "hold".
 
2012-07-29 11:28:21 PM  
...or "carry".
 
2012-07-29 11:36:24 PM  

RyogaM: 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.


Ok.

/come oooooon, Mayans!
 
2012-07-29 11:38:09 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights. The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Army-grade? I can go out and get an "Army-grade" M9 right now and be back in a half-hour, legally. Army-grade. That's funny.
 
2012-07-29 11:41:01 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.


There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Why are you protecting this idiot?
 
2012-07-29 11:41:15 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.


Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.
 
2012-07-29 11:46:17 PM  
Our second-most stupidest Justice, America
 
2012-07-29 11:47:55 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


Link

/incoming "I'm not clicking that link" in 3...2....
 
2012-07-29 11:47:58 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


The state of Kentucky, for one. You don't have to like it. The fact of the matter is lots of paperwork, even more money, plus the specter of prison forever does seem to Kentucky from going full Somalia; despite the fact that they started off as Kentucky. Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.

I invite you to youtube Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot, or FPSRussia for more information. (Though you really should have started watching that on a Friday evening)
 
2012-07-29 11:50:00 PM  

vygramul: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.


Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:21 PM  
Strict constructionist / originalist / republican / conservative.

Different labels that all mean the same things. I have no imagination and new things scare me deeply.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:50 PM  

spongeboob: 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.


Not having to fight in close proximity to the enemy made the rifle a superior weapon. Certainly the musket had the advantage in set-piece, close-range battles between ranks of soldiers, but that's not how the Americans used their rifles. Since their effective range was as much as 3 times that of the Brown Bess, Washington had riflemen organized into special units to attrit British officers and non-coms early in the battle to confuse and demoralize the Brits, along with dogging their formed ranks as they marched from place to place. IIRC the Brits never did have an answer during the war to the Americans' long range rifles, and rightly feared them.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:52 PM  

vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?


Yeah, that's total bullshiat - if someone is too dangerous to let out of prison, keep them in prison, but if they have served their sentence including probation/parole let them have the same rights aas anyone else
 
2012-07-29 11:51:54 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.


*shrugs*

I mean, if you can make the case that it's something harmless that rich harmless people do, I can't argue with that.

I don't get that impression from Scalia's quip. He really does sound like he has no moral compass as to what kinds of weapons of destruction should be allowed.
 
2012-07-29 11:52:10 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples:
The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Why are you protecting this idiot?



Huh. I guess conservatives don't have a monopoly on poking their head in the sand and getting emotional when facts are presented to them.
 
2012-07-29 11:53:16 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.


They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.
 
2012-07-29 11:56:18 PM  

zerkalo: Our second-most stupidest Justice, America


Is it "more stupider" than you?
 
2012-07-29 11:58:14 PM  
More leftist butthurt. Don't like it? Amend the constitution!

Lefties-think of the right to bear arms the way you expect anti-abortionists to think/behave about abortion-accept that what you don't like is legal and either amend the constitution to outlaw it OR STFU!
 
2012-07-29 11:58:52 PM  

buckler: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.

They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.


Many still do, and in fact a lot of units are going back to full auto instead of crappy 3 round burst. See for instance the M4A1 used by the Army Rangers and Marines.
 
2012-07-29 11:58:58 PM  

buckler: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.

They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.


It's still, technically, automatic fire since you pull the trigger once and the gun fires more than once.

In any case, trying to tie army usage to the intention of the 2nd amendment is a losing proposition since the founders were pretty much against standing armies to begin with. Our modern military and police forces would horrify them.
 
2012-07-29 11:59:30 PM  
Arms is short for armaments which is any military weapon ranging from spears to tactical nuclear missiles; so in that sense I guess it would be against the 2nd Amendment to deny a US citizen the right to own a RPG or military grade automatic weapons.
 
2012-07-30 12:02:48 AM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


I constructed a shoulder fired rocket launcher when I was 13. It's not even rocket science.
 
2012-07-30 12:02:50 AM  
My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.
 
2012-07-30 12:08:53 AM  

vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?


Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.
 
2012-07-30 12:11:37 AM  

evil saltine: vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?

Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.


Antonin Scalia: Member of Leviathan, or the Guild of Calamitous Intent, or both?
 
2012-07-30 12:11:50 AM  

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.


Notice that few people go with the "amend the constitution" simply because that would be the legal and legitimate way to do it.

/Never mind what the law says, Lets find a judge that can read it the way we want.
/Or is it that they know they are wrong and afraid to poke the dynamite monkey?
 
2012-07-30 12:12:01 AM  

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

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.


[WTFamireading.jpg]
 
2012-07-30 12:12:15 AM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.


How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.
 
2012-07-30 12:13:07 AM  
I can't wait for the first time somebody uses a bazooka to stand their ground.
 
2012-07-30 12:15:34 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.


They never foresaw the stark contrast between the arms held by the people and those held by the government, though. At that time, they were the same thing, save for cannons, mortars and the like.
 
2012-07-30 12:17:56 AM  

evil saltine: vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?

Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.


That is not correct. In the McDonald opinion he clearly stated that regulations were OK, but banning an entire class of firearms was not. He has never given any indication that he would overturn NFA34 or GCA68.

It would help if you guys wouldn't make assumptions about what Scalia believes and instead actually read what he believes in his opinions. He's perfectly OK with gun control regulations, including the disenfranchisement of felons. So is the rest of the Court. We're they not they could have granted cert to any number of challenges that have come up over the decades.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. What is absolute is that you have the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon your good standing as a citizen of this country, and that entire classes of firearms cannot be banned. Everything else is fair game. Want a registry? Get the votes and enact one, it doesn't violate the amendment. Want the Assault Weapons Ban back? Same thing. Want to ban handguns? Sorry, you can't do that.

Why this has to become a holy war every single time it comes up is beyond me. We can have opposing positions and still be reasonable about it.
 
2012-07-30 12:18:51 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.


That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.

We have courts to interpret what was written in the 2nd Amendment, and I do not feel comfortable with the kind of irresponsible attitude Scalia has towards what was written. He is a person of great power, and I find his flippant remarks disturbing.
 
2012-07-30 12:23:55 AM  

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.


I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.
 
2012-07-30 12:24:20 AM  

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.

That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.

We have courts to interpret what was written in the 2nd Amendment, and I do not feel comfortable with the kind of irresponsible attitude Scalia has towards what was written. He is a person of great power, and I find his flippant remarks disturbing.


Disturbing or not, they are legally correct. I find opinions favoring abortion disturbing, yet I don't rail against them, I simply respect them as they are in fact the law of the land. And again, Saclia does to have the right to ban them anyway, that is not his responsibility as an appellate judge. Saying that it is legal is not the same as condoning it, disapproving of it, or anything else. It is a statement of fact which he is entitled to make thanks to that pesky Bill of Rights he pisses on, according to you.
 
2012-07-30 12:26:04 AM  

Happy Hours: Yeah, that's total bullshiat - if someone is too dangerous to let out of prison, keep them in prison, but if they have served their sentence including probation/parole let them have the same rights aas anyone else


Agreed.

Paying your debt is paying your debt. No person should be subjected to any prohibitions, residency restrictions, or registration requirements (sex offender, felon, etc.) once their sentence is complete.

I have no issues with barring a person a on probation/parole from voting, possessing firearms or having to register and notify their community. Once their parole/probation is up, those requirements go away.
 
2012-07-30 12:30:07 AM  
That line reminds me of some lines attributed to Abbie Hoffman. ----

If you are around a military base, you will find it relatively easy to get your hands on an M-79 grenade launcher, which is like a giant shotgun and is probably the best self-defense weapon of all time. Just inquire discreetly among some long-haired soldiers.

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.

I believe in compulsory cannibalism. If people were forced to eat what they killed, there would be no more wars.
 
2012-07-30 12:32:07 AM  

ArkAngel: 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 .


A light perusal of the comments suggest nobody else actuall listened to the video.
 
2012-07-30 12:33:26 AM  
Why are we having another discussion about this? The de bate is over. There can be no restrictions on guns. The occasional massacre is just the price we pay. I hope it never happens to you or anyone you care about.
 
2012-07-30 12:37:36 AM  

whidbey: Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.

*shrugs*

I mean, if you can make the case that it's something harmless that rich harmless people do, I can't argue with that.

I don't get that impression from Scalia's quip. He really does sound like he has no moral compass as to what kinds of weapons of destruction should be allowed.


Scalia is wrong on his reading. This is self-evident based on the contradiction within it; nevermind his reading's disagreement with reality. He's also a terrible human being. I don't care about Scalia's muddled thinking on anything. He believes what he's paid to believe and he's perfectly willing to torture reason and facts, or simply ignore them to give the thinnest veneer of plausability to his sophistry.

But that's independant of the country you imagine living in. People own destructive devices, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns, mini-guns, cannons, tanks, and rocket launchers. It's pretty rare. But think of how rare schizophrenia is and mass shootings are, and yet in a country of 300 million people we've come to expect just a few a year. But destructive devices, outside of the anarchists cookbook (an idiot's guide to theatrical suicide), are virtually unheard of. In a nation this large? I personally believe that points to our militia as being well regulated.

That's not to say the practice is without harm. On a larger scale there are unintended/accidental shootings, fires, crimes of passion, but those events are generally the perview of the less able, less skilled, less stable, less well-regulated aspects. There are also less obvious effects, such as lead dust, lead contamination, and others of which I am no doubt ignorant.

I would consider myself an enthusiastic proponant of gun control. But when it comes to interjecting my will into the free time of those, by all accounts, safely preserving the legacy and information surrounding firearms exotic and otherwise, I don't see the point? If I lend my will to taking the joy out of someone else's life, what do I recieve in return? While your fears might be eased, will I see my fellow citizens enjoy more years of life? More wealth? Anything? If I'm to lend my efforts to taking a bite of someone else's freedom, I need a reason I can believe in.
 
2012-07-30 12:41:03 AM  

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.

That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.


I disagree. My point was not only not speculative, but there is a great body of historical research, papers and books to support it. SCOTUS touched on several of those sources in Heller.

FWIW, the Founders could not have envisioned the internet, either, but the law and society certainly extend the rights of the 1st to that medium. If it's good enough for the 1st, drawing a 'new technology' line for the 2nd seems a real stretch to me.
 
2012-07-30 12:41:03 AM  

Pincy: I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.


Cute.

"Reasonable restrictions" as defined by groups that have repeatedly called for outright bans, claimed that there is no individual right to own guns, etc. are suspect from the get go. Being a little more objective, it becomes apparent that the restrictions supported/proposed for instruments of the 2nd amendment would be inexcusable and unacceptable if applied to the rights enumerated in 1st amendment or other rights.

How tolerable would it be require a background check, 3 day waiting period, one-a-year limit, special licenses, hard age limits, etc. on abortion? Call them reasonable restrictions on the right to abortion and require costly licenses, fingerprints, zoning, office space, etc. restrictions. Then require patients to register for abortions so we can track them and impose a 5 day "cooling off period" and ensure that they abide by the "one-per-year" limit on abortions. All sounds perfectly reasonable, eh?

How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?

The only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment are the same type that would be reasonable for the 1st. They're not actually restrictions as much as they are limits on the protections of those rights.
You can say what you want, but the 1st amendment won't protect your right to utter "fighting words", threaten people, say things intended to cause panic, etc. You can't be gagged or denied entrance to some place because of what you might do. Similarly, you can't be denied the ability to buy, possess, or carry a firearm because of what you might do. You can be prosecuted for brandishing, discharging in populated areas, etc.
 
2012-07-30 12:43:37 AM  

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"

Yay
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report