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 20
    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»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-29 05:09:19 PM
6 votes:
Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!
2012-07-29 10:12:29 PM
2 votes:

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"


It is ridiculous that everyone is so up tight about the arms debate when cars kill more people every year than guns do in america. Are we going to try and ban cars? No. No one is going to do this. It is ridiculous.

I therefore say "yay" as long as suitcase nukes are only allowed to be used by those who have passed a multiple choice test showing they understand international laws regarding WMDs, have demonstrated that they are capable of detonating a suit case nuke safely to an instructor, have insurance covering any damage they may inadvertently cause with a suit case nuke, have their suit case nuke inspected yearly to ensure it is working as required by law, and carry paperwork demonstrating these requirements while in operation of a suit case nuke.

Anything else would be ridiculous.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 09:57:18 PM
2 votes:

Triumph: 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.


If someone in Aurora had had a suitcase nuke they could have taken out Sideshow Bob before he had a chance to kill more than one or two people.
2012-07-29 04:52:32 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-30 07:13:55 PM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.


Why would there be intelligence in a post replying to you when all you could do was mock and insult me without ever addressing one thing I said?

Now you're saying I should die? See I was right, you are an emotional knee jerk disaster of a person who adds nothing to society. Seek mental help before you go Aurora on some people too.


It's your choice, I would never harm you myself, but certainly the world wouldn't mind if you did.

Hey, I have a great idea! Why don't you buy a gun and shoot yourself with it. People would be all like "icb didn't like guns, in fact they made his micro-peen turtle up even smaller than normal at the thought of one, but he bought and killed himself with a gun! Wow, that's the height of irony. He truly was a hipster God. The world will surely miss... well no one will miss icb, but he sure showed us non-shaggy haircut having non pre-scuffed jeans wearing regular frame glasses wearing mainstreamers a thing or two." Yes, you showed us, showed us what a moron you are, but still, you showed us.
2012-07-30 10:02:51 AM
1 votes:
Awesome... I've always wanted one of these:

loyalkng.com

If that kid had one, that audience wouldn't stand a chance...
2012-07-30 09:51:27 AM
1 votes:

imontheinternet: "If you can carry it in your hands, it's legal" is the dumbest interpretation of the Second Amendment I've ever heard. So, if somebody is born with one arm, he only has the right to "bear" one-handed weapons? The Amendment only applies to arms one can "bear," right? And, the Founding Fathers speak to you in your dreams, so they must have explained to you that the word bear means "to lift physically" and not "to operate" in the context of weapons. Moron.


Well, yeah. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any right to use weapons. Keep, sure. Bear? Absolutely. Fire? Nope.

Makes sense, too... The original intent of the 2nd was to keep a tyrannical government from confiscating arms to suppress rebellion... but using weapons as part of a rebellion is treason, by definition, and wouldn't be constitutionally protected. Of course, by the time you've declared open war on the government, courts and legal rights are irrelevant. Hence, "using" arms is moot in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

Basically, all of the NRA "the Second Amendment protects mah right to kill intruding deer and hunt burglars" arguments are incorrect and are looking at the wrong amendment.

/according to the textualists
//the "living document" side would acknowledge that the Second has gained a new definition
2012-07-30 05:45:55 AM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.


Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions


See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.
2012-07-30 02:06:53 AM
1 votes:
intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.
2012-07-30 12:51:26 AM
1 votes:

pedrop357: 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.


You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.
2012-07-29 11:46:17 PM
1 votes:
Our second-most stupidest Justice, America
2012-07-29 10:22:30 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?


Actually, that kinda makes sense. Felons can't vote, for example. They're not "full citizens."

Oh, who am I kidding, it makes no sense.
2012-07-29 09:47:36 PM
1 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-07-29 09:38:38 PM
1 votes:
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 09:37:05 PM
1 votes:

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 08:40:17 PM
1 votes:

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 08:29:20 PM
1 votes:
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 08:20:01 PM
1 votes:
Frankly, I'm in favor of anything that gives Americans more ability to kill each other.

/So vote Republican.
2012-07-29 05:51:30 PM
1 votes:

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 05:48:05 PM
1 votes:
A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report