Quantcast

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.

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/scalia-rocket-launcher...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Bastion 2012/07/30 13:20:33
    Bastion
    +4
    "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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Gunluvr 2012/10/22 00:35:24
    Gunluvr
    +2
    I like that; Justice Scalia is the man. I can own whatever kind of weapon I've got the money and inclination to buy. By the way someone wrote that flamethrowers aren't for sale, they are and they're sold as farm implements for controlled burnings. No permit is required but they are tough to find.
  • Ronzo 2012/08/13 15:00:25
    Ronzo
    The surgical scalpel kills far more living heart beating unborn baby's. This current Obama administration and its Regime and supporters are guilty of killing the beating hearts of unborn helpless, pretty vicious. I understand what Judge Scalia is getting at, let's face the truth, we are living in an age where stealing by the poor from those who have plenty is upon our land. Obama supports breaking Laws and raping the constitution with his excecutive orders that gives him the feeling of dictatorial powers. I don't don't care what color your skin is or your religious belief, if you put Obama before God's Laws you will answer for that one day. They a high pecentage of Black and Hispanic people are voting for Obama, well I believe those who are Christians will not vote for him because they disagree with his moral values on abortion and God.
  • Steve 2012/07/31 07:44:42
    Steve
    +1
    Why stop at rocket launchers? How about a right to carry flamethrowers, nerve gas, anthrax spores?
  • Fredthe... Steve 2012/12/31 20:24:39
    FredtheRapist
    actually flamethrowers are unrestricted, but they are really expensive. tanks and artillery are legal also but have some restrictions, but are expensive. Machine guns are legal, but really expensive. Americans have more rights than you think
  • Superman 2012/07/30 20:15:02
    Superman
    +1
    And one more thing, since its so over used by liberals any time the discussion on the War on Terror comes up let me throw that old old quote right back at you.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  • Steve Superman 2012/07/31 07:46:28
    Steve
    when irresponsible people are permitted to carry guns, nobody has any liberty.
  • Superman Steve 2012/07/31 13:42:32
    Superman
    +2
    A few things.

    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.
  • Superman 2012/07/30 20:03:37
    Superman
    +1
    Lest we continue taking statements out of context and replacing them with our own assumptions, let me requote what was above.

    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...

    Lest we continue taking statements out of context and replacing them with our own assumptions, let me requote what was above.

    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.
    (more)
  • Horace 2012/07/30 17:05:13
    Horace
    +1
    "But officer, without this nuclear weapons silo how will I hunt elk?"
  • sjalan 2012/07/30 15:51:36
    sjalan
    +1
    SCalia needs to be removed from the bench. His view on weapons is outrageous.
  • carolynb 2012/07/30 14:08:58
    carolynb
    +3
    Citizens can have all the guns they want but what they need to do is ban the number of rounds in a clip. No one needs more than 6 and if they are trying to buy more, they should be reported to law enforcement.
  • tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA 2012/07/30 13:35:44
    tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA
    +1
    I think he said "that will have to be decided".
  • Superman tommyg ... 2012/07/30 20:04:35
    Superman
    +2
    Wait a minute, did you actually read the quotes? Shame on you. You're suppose to fall into a mass panic just because Progressive tells you to, without paying any attention.
  • Doc. J 2012/07/30 13:31:44
    Doc. J
    +2
    Q: What good is a rocket launcher without rockets?
    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?
  • ProudPr... Doc. J 2012/07/30 13:40:04
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    You got a few things wrong, Doc.

    "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.
  • Doc. J ProudPr... 2012/07/30 14:27:07
    Doc. J
    *Loud buzzer souds*
    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?
  • Superman Doc. J 2012/07/30 20:08:55
    Superman
    +1
    Ah, you hit the nail on the head. "Think it should be". There is no room in Progressives America for other opinions or potential legal definitions. If Progressive declares something is a certain way then thats how it is. Any discussion to the contrary, especially if its a discussion how laws are now, its moot. One day Progressive will tell us all what to think and do.

    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.
  • Doc. J Superman 2012/07/30 20:20:09
    Doc. J
    Yes, but to be fair, I have had nearly the exact same non-rationale thrown my way from conservatives who declare abortion "murder" contrary to the law.

    What I have learned is that BOTH sides become victims of their own emotions, and are unable to be objective on some subjects .
  • Superman Doc. J 2012/07/30 20:45:46
    Superman
    +2
    Its funny you bring that up because somewhere in this thread Progressive goes on about the Constitution as it was when written and versus how it is now. The idea being that because the level of weaponry didn't exist then that the implication is the 2nd Amendment really doesn't apply correctly now. My first thought was pro life people who would make the same argument, that because abortion didn't exist in the same fashion then that it does now that means its not really a Constitutional discussion and needs modern review.

    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.
  • Doc. J Superman 2012/07/30 22:15:01
    Doc. J
    +1
    It's that very inconsistancy that drives me up a wall, and has me refusing to identify as either a conservative OR liberal.

    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...
  • Wahvlvke Doc. J 2012/07/30 14:11:13
    Wahvlvke
    Someone wrung out a Pamper and we have PP again.
  • Doc. J Wahvlvke 2012/07/30 14:38:32
    Doc. J
    No, P.P. is a decent person. He's just being too reactionary on this.
  • Bastion 2012/07/30 13:20:33
    Bastion
    +4
    "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.
  • Ronzo Bastion 2012/08/13 15:17:09 (edited)
    Ronzo
    Scalia is in support of law abiding US citizens and the intent of the Constitution a way to defend ourselves when oppressed/attacked by those who would destroy our way of life and Heritage. Obama does not respect our Heritage, he never Praises our founding Father's actually he is far more Dangerous than Scalia with his Anti constitutional views. Wake up American, dark skies are upon us come to the light of truth Romney and Ryan can bring. The innocent men women and children in Syria would love to have a way to defend themselves from a power hungry law breaking and lavish life style of the rich and famous. Why or how can the Eric Holder, Hilary or Barak Obama be exempt from killing millions and misrepresent millions of others and this is ok to those who support him. Our military has been weakened, we pull out of Iraq and Russia Moves in next door, Obama, Hilary run from Russia and China and let the Dictator of Syria kill baby's oh well we do that in America, right Obama and liberal Clan, NASA space funding cut, food stamps increased however, Obamacare forced on us, its a new tax a tax on the Middle Class, I thought Obama was not going to raise taxes on the Middle Class?? The Economy is a disaster and all Obama can say is, not me I'm innocent I only do good successful changes, well we are on the road to Hell and Obama says Forward, you all ready to doom America.
  • Bastion Ronzo 2012/08/13 15:30:50
    Bastion
    "Obama does not respect our Heritage, he never Praises our founding Father's actually he is far more Dangerous than Scalia with his Anti constitutional views"

    That's asinine.

    down the rabbit hole
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/07/30 13:06:10
    Rusty Shackleford
    I disagree, the second amendment DOES apply to cannons.
  • ProudPr... Rusty S... 2012/07/30 13:12:40
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    You can't "bear" a cannon.

    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.
  • Rusty S... ProudPr... 2012/07/30 13:16:22
    Rusty Shackleford
    I can "keep" a canon.

    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?
  • ProudPr... Rusty S... 2012/07/30 13:24:58
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    LOL first of all, the Second Amendment was never intended to protect your individual right to own anything, including a stick. It was intended to assure the States the ability to raise a militia in the event of foreign invasion. Second of all, since the most sophisticated "arms" available when the Second Amendment was written were muskets, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the phrase "bear arms" in the Constitution is intended to be limited to muskets. Third, "arms" clearly does apply only to carryable weapons. It does not apply to cannons, it does not apply to nuclear bombs, it does not apply to chemical or biological weapons. It applies to hand held weapons. Finally, if in fact you can purchase an operable cannon that's wonderful for you, but it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and if there are laws allowing you to purchase a cannon they could be repealed tomorrow and you could not do a thing about it. Except maybe blow up Congress.
  • Wahvlvke ProudPr... 2012/07/30 14:16:18
    Wahvlvke
    +1
    Now you are channeling the Founding Fathers. Get real. The Second Amendment has a primary purpose ... to protect the peolpe from dictator wannabees like the traitorous flop eared socialist bastard we have posing as president.
  • Rusty S... ProudPr... 2012/07/30 17:53:36
    Rusty Shackleford
    "...and if there are laws allowing you to purchase 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.
  • Wahvlvke Rusty S... 2012/07/30 14:13:18
    Wahvlvke
    And you can use your truck to "bear" it.
  • Ronzo ProudPr... 2012/08/13 15:51:55 (edited)
    Ronzo
    You have a distorted approach to this issue. First of all The Right to Bear Arms is the right to defend our way of life and Constitutional Laws, anything goes. Think about it when we were oppressed by the Brits we fought any way we could, we even let other counties support us with weapons, our freedom was at stake, Hello! Now as far health or Obamacare it was forced on the majority and it is a tax so Obama nor the Courts have the Right to force a tax on us without Representation, that is constitutional. The Obamacare is Unconstitutional and the second amendment is constitutional. If someone was breaking into your home to do your family harm you would do whatever to defend them! You need to do some soul searching on your views. One last question, this will show you what kind of person you are. The 7 week old unborn baby's HEART is fuctional at 7 weeks, do you think its ok to terminate its life? What kind of person are you?
  • Ronzo Rusty S... 2012/08/13 15:37:41
    Ronzo
    I think your right however not to many people would see the need to possess a cannon. The people in Syria would love to have more fire power to defend themselves. The Cowards of the free Republics won't help so this is why people need to be able to defend themselves.
  • Live Free Or Die 2012/07/30 12:48:17
    Live Free Or Die
    +3
    I hope someone hits him with a rocket launcher then in the name of freedom and liberty everywhere. Geez, we do need some gun control, like banning assault rifles from being legally bought by mass murderers.
  • Rusty S... Live Fr... 2012/07/30 13:08:18
  • ProudPr... Rusty S... 2012/07/30 13:13:12
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    How about two:

    James Holmes.
    Jared Loughner.
  • Rusty S... ProudPr... 2012/07/30 13:19:29
    Rusty Shackleford
    James Holmes has not yet been convicted of any crime. Once he is convicted in a court of law of multiple murders, then you can call him a mass murder. Once that happens, show me how he will be able to purchase a sling shot let alone an assault rifle.

    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.
  • ProudPr... Rusty S... 2012/07/30 13:25:49
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    I am proposing banning EVERYONE from purchasing assault weapons. You can protect yourself quite sufficiently with a musket.
  • Wahvlvke ProudPr... 2012/07/30 14:22:38
    Wahvlvke
    +1
    You are one dumb son of a bitch who obviously knows nothing about guns.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/17 12:44:28

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals