"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"
This is the kind of judicial nonsense that makes it shamefull that we have boneheads like Scalia on the bench
To mince words like a bible student: "cannot be hand-carried" - would you have to stop and apply the 2nd Amendment to a suitcase nuke, Antonin? You're not deciding whether you can fill the cistern on the Sabbath, we're discussing automatic rifles with 100 round clips in movie theaters.
I have to submit a drivers license and go into a government databank to buy Sudafed.
But I can stock up on enough ammunition to kill 100s at WalMart.
Scalia Says Rocket Launchers Are Protected Under the Second Amendment
ProudProgressive
2012/07/30 11:33:22
It never ceases to amaze. Another mass murder, another example of the effect of flooding the population with assault rifles, and of course, another call from the Right Wing for, you guessed it, MORE GUNS. If Antonin Scalia hadn't already established himself as the most extremist activist judge in American history, this latest admission of his right wing bona fides might just do it. The Constitution says that Justices of the Supreme Court serve "upon good behavior." Scalia has worn out his welcome, and resignation or impeachment seems the only solution if the rights of the American people are ever going to survive.
Article excerpt follows:
Scalia Says Rocket Launchers Are Protected Under the Second Amendment
By: Jason Easley
July 29th, 2012
In an opinion that is sure to delight potential terrorists everywhere, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told Fox News Sunday that he believes all hand held weapons including rocket launchers are protected under the Second Amendment.
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.
Even more chilling than rocket launchers is that Scalia's theoretical idea of hand held would also cover a small nuclear device that could fit in a briefcase, or any other mass casualty inflicting weapon that a person could carry. The idea that a rocket launcher could be protected under the Second Amendment is a very extreme view of the Founders' intentions.
Conservatives have gone from a advocating a position of protecting the right to keep and bear arms to believing that nearly every weapon imaginable can and should be legally available to all Americans. I wonder how the NRA will defend the necessity of rocket launchers for hunting or personal protection? I can't wait to hear somebody suggest that the next American mass shooting could have been prevented if the victims would have had rocket launchers.
It was fitting that Scalia, who along with Clarence Thomas has shattered all pretense of political neutrality on the High Court, would make his remarks on Fox News Sunday. Here is a Supreme Court Justice appearing on a program produced by a partisan cable news network to advance a radical position that could arm and empower mass killers.
Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the constitution is one of the reasons why any serious conversation about keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is nearly impossible to have. How can the nation have a reasonable dialogue about the role of accessibility to weapons and ammo in episodes of mass violence if one side of the discussion believes that rocket launchers are protected under the Second Amendment?
Justice Scalia's legal reasoning based on a highly politicized interpretation of the Second Amendment is the domestic terrorist and mass murderer's best friend.
Article excerpt follows:
Scalia Says Rocket Launchers Are Protected Under the Second Amendment
By: Jason Easley
July 29th, 2012
In an opinion that is sure to delight potential terrorists everywhere, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told Fox News Sunday that he believes all hand held weapons including rocket launchers are protected under the Second Amendment.
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.
Even more chilling than rocket launchers is that Scalia's theoretical idea of hand held would also cover a small nuclear device that could fit in a briefcase, or any other mass casualty inflicting weapon that a person could carry. The idea that a rocket launcher could be protected under the Second Amendment is a very extreme view of the Founders' intentions.
Conservatives have gone from a advocating a position of protecting the right to keep and bear arms to believing that nearly every weapon imaginable can and should be legally available to all Americans. I wonder how the NRA will defend the necessity of rocket launchers for hunting or personal protection? I can't wait to hear somebody suggest that the next American mass shooting could have been prevented if the victims would have had rocket launchers.
It was fitting that Scalia, who along with Clarence Thomas has shattered all pretense of political neutrality on the High Court, would make his remarks on Fox News Sunday. Here is a Supreme Court Justice appearing on a program produced by a partisan cable news network to advance a radical position that could arm and empower mass killers.
Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the constitution is one of the reasons why any serious conversation about keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is nearly impossible to have. How can the nation have a reasonable dialogue about the role of accessibility to weapons and ammo in episodes of mass violence if one side of the discussion believes that rocket launchers are protected under the Second Amendment?
Justice Scalia's legal reasoning based on a highly politicized interpretation of the Second Amendment is the domestic terrorist and mass murderer's best friend.
Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/scalia-rocket-launcher...
Top Opinion
-
Bastion 2012/07/30 13:20:33
![Marco Rubio Embarrasses Himself [Again] While Trying to Bash Obama on Syria](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003750335/5914246531_rubio_water_large.png "Marco Rubio Embarrasses Himself [Again] While Trying to Bash Obama on Syria")
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The Colorado shooter wasn't irresponsible, he was crazy. Thats a completely different animal to deal with.
Irresponsible gun owner tend to be criminals - and of course if heavy restrictions are placed on gun ownership we know how well criminals like to obey the law.
The vast majority of gun owners in the US are responsible. They're trained and the respect the item. Denying the vast majority of citizens of their Constitutional rights out of fear for a few crazies is wrong.
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.
Not one spot in that brief section of conversation does Scalia actually say he'd rule on way or the other. His statement is "We'll see." and "That will have to be decided" and "Very carefully".
He's doing precisely what a jurist should do by not actually prejudging a case before it reaches the bench. Each case is different. His basic conclusion is we'll have to see what happens if a law allowing or disallowing these things makes it to the bench. And he was far from flippant about it. He was very clear that whatever choice was made it would have to be made very carefully.
This is yet again the silliest of work from two ideologues in tandem. The original article takes a very small portion of a broader conversation and then removes t...
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.
Not one spot in that brief section of conversation does Scalia actually say he'd rule on way or the other. His statement is "We'll see." and "That will have to be decided" and "Very carefully".
He's doing precisely what a jurist should do by not actually prejudging a case before it reaches the bench. Each case is different. His basic conclusion is we'll have to see what happens if a law allowing or disallowing these things makes it to the bench. And he was far from flippant about it. He was very clear that whatever choice was made it would have to be made very carefully.
This is yet again the silliest of work from two ideologues in tandem. The original article takes a very small portion of a broader conversation and then removes the meaning of the original statement and applies his own assumptions. Thats bad work. The OP continues by adding in reductio ad absurdum by suggesting next that we're all going to want and get nukes. Thats a useless train of thought.
Then you have the comments of the OP of this whole thread who is so breathlessly freaked out over these few benign sentences that he's ready to impeach Scalia. This is ideology and hyperbole run amok, and it happens daily from Proud Progressive, daily.
A: It isn't.
Q: Are such rockets legal to own?
A: No. They are considered an area weapon and are decidedly ILLEGAL to own or possess unless they hsve been rendered permanently inert for purpose of display in a museum or collection.
Q: What abuot the nuclear weapons the auther is shrilling like a little girl about?
A: Are you f*cking kidding me? There are NO privately owned Weapons of Mass Destruction...
Q: So the author is pretty much talking out of his @ss?
A: Yes.
If he wants to make his argument for gun control, he's going to have to learn enough about the ACTUAL laws so he can WITHOUT sounding like he's a stranger to reality.
Q: Doc, how did you get so damned smart?
A: Easy. I stick to what I KNOW, learn what I dont, so I can speak with a basis in FACT, while leaving the hysterical supposition to people like the author They end up making me look much smarter than I really am.
Wow Doc, you are the man!
Yeah sure, pass me that bore snake, will you?
"There are NO privately owned Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Wrong - an Assault Weapon such as that used by James Holmes or that used by Jared Loughner is a weapon of mass destruction.
"the author is pretty much talking out of his @ss"
No, but you are. If someone gets his hands on a rocket launcher he will get his hands on rockets. And the NRA will be right there helping him along.
"Doc, how did you get so damned smart?"
You didn't. Smart people don't facilitate mass murder.
Wrong P.P.
A semiautomatic rifle is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction under the laws.......even if you think it is or should be. The LAW decides such things, not reactionary oppinion.
And no, the NRA would not help anyone break federal law.
OBTW, it's a HELL of a lot harder to get your hands on heavy weapons like rockets than you imagine. They are tracked closely. To get such things, you will need about a cool million to liberally spread fsr and wide JUST to bribe the appropriate officials in the countries where such things CAN be found. Then you need almost as much to get them smuggled in. Oh, and it's going to be cash money because nobody in either the international arms or smuggling world.....take American Express.
And you're also going to have to come up with a working launcher because the one you have was rendered permanently inert by the BATF before you could legality own it.....
Again, one of us clearly knows what he's talking about, and one is speaking emotionally from a reactionary standpoint.
Anybody out there care to guess which is which?
And of course then there are the leading statement assumptions where he puts out as a fact his own personal animous towards a group of people by stating he "knows" they'd do x.
Progressive I'm going to do it again - without direct knowledge or evidence you can't say for sure what a group like the NRA would do so your statement that "And the NRA will be right there helping him along." is a lie.
You are LYING.
What I have learned is that BOTH sides become victims of their own emotions, and are unable to be objective on some subjects .
Of course both sides would poo poo the others argument when it doesn't suit their interests.
And thats maddening - when you can't get consistency. When you're willing to make one argument for your own ideological ends and yet forsake the same damn argument when its inconvenient.
Anyway. Good point.
Screw all of em. I'm me and I choose to look at all things as objectivly as I can whether anybody (including me) likes that or not.
I use guns and abortion as examples of issues that will NEVER be settled because they conveniently give BOTH sides something to be for and against so the rest of us can tell them apart.
Otherwise the conservative "tool" that's used to screw us, feels a hell of a lot like the liberal "tool".
My @ss ends up sore one way or the other...
This is the kind of judicial nonsense that makes it shamefull that we have boneheads like Scalia on the bench
To mince words like a bible student: "cannot be hand-carried" - would you have to stop and apply the 2nd Amendment to a suitcase nuke, Antonin? You're not deciding whether you can fill the cistern on the Sabbath, we're discussing automatic rifles with 100 round clips in movie theaters.
I have to submit a drivers license and go into a government databank to buy Sudafed.
But I can stock up on enough ammunition to kill 100s at WalMart.
That's asinine.
And since we're on the subject of "original intent of the founding fathers", seems to be the sensible thing would be to ban all weapons other than single loading muskets. That's what the Founders intended. If they had wanted to include cannons and rocket launchers they would have said so, right? After all, they don't mention health care and you folks think that makes the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
The Founding Fathers didn't prevent the Congress from infringing upon my rights to own a musket, they prevented the Congress from infringing upon my rights to own weapons, that includes everything from a sharp stick to firearms.
Do you realize that I CAN legally own a cannon?
That right there is our fundamental difference. I believe that I am free to do whatever I want and that government must outlaw an act before I can no longer do it, you believe that people should not be able to do something unless a law allows them to do it.
James Holmes.
Jared Loughner.
If you are proposing banning FUTURE mass murderers from purchasing assault weapons, then I would have to ask why you don't just throw them in prison right now.