Scalia opens door for gun control debate.

[TheTman]

I did not expect something like this from Scalia. :confused:

"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," he said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities." :(

You'd think he would know 2nd amendment is not about sporting use or hunting. It's to keep the Government in check. To me, it's meant to allow us to have similiar weapons to the military, George Washington didn't defeat the British with bows and arrows. He used the same type of muskets, and in some instances superior rifles than the British had.
How are we supposed to overthrow tyrants and dictators if we don't have similiar weapons? I don't mean we should be able to buy rocket launchers and such, but at least we should be allowed semi-auto AR's and AK's, M14's and such, not just some bolt action hunting rifle. That statement is just lunacy. He must have been sitting next to Ginsburg for too long.

That just really bothers me, isn't he supposed to be one of the most conservative judges? I suppose we can kiss any semi-auto rifle or shotgun goodbye with attitudes like that from the conservative side of the court.

Article at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz22Gwaeuh2

[jeepster09]

I need to find an Island.....this country is heading in the wrong direction sadly :mad:

[JimC]

I watched the interview. I found him interesting and even appreciated his sense of humor at times.
I was however taken back about his comments on the 2nd Amendment.
I trust that he will do the right thing as far as our rights when something comes before the court...I hope.
Face it, we live in a time that our freedoms are challenged every time some AH takes the action that they do like in CO last week. :(

[chrish]

While I don't agree w/ alot of what Scalia had to say, and started another hot-n-bothered therad about it...

The quote above is not Scalia, that's the presidents comments the other day...if you look back, the linked articles do say 'president' regarding those remarks. I don't think (even under the pretense that Scalia was talking about w/ regards to limits) that he would back that position on an AK/AR firearm.

Just wanted to be clear that the quote in the OP is from Obama, not Scalia.

[TheTman]

Oh do I feel like and idiot now, thanks chrish, I'd rather feel like and idiot than have Scalia stabbing us in the back. Thanks!

[Bawanna]

Oh do I feel like and idiot now, thanks chrish, I'd rather feel like and idiot than have Scalia stabbing us in the back. Thanks!

The dude in the White House is still the idiot. And those words sound precisely like what we're accustomed to hearing from him.

[jeepster09]

Oh do I feel like and idiot now, thanks chrish, I'd rather feel like and idiot than have Scalia stabbing us in the back. Thanks!


Phewww I can unpack and cancil Island searching for now.......:behindsofa:

[Sage]

Good post themanski. I believe however that the constitution does give us the right to own rocket launchers or any other arms we may desire. I don't think anyone is going to push the issue though.

[Armybrat]

If you all recall, the Heller decision left "some" of the regulation of firearms up to the states.

That's what Scalia was reiterating here.

[chrish]

Oh, I wasn't defending Scalia, but making sure we give credit where credit is due. Scalia still argued that some limits are reasonable. But as I mentioned in the other thread on this subject (Scalia's comments), he indicated that firearms deemed to be 'menacing' could be limited at some level by Congress. He indicated that legislation like that might pass the SCOTUS sniff test. My concern, like so many other 'interpretations' of laws and our Constitution have resulted in a greased pole rather than a slippery slope and we now have a mess. Basically, if they can make weapon A 'meanacing' in the near future, and the SCOTUS won't touch it like they did w/ ObamaCare, then nothing to stop them from deciding weapon 'B' in menacing next time. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. If you don't believe that. Check out your pay stub next week.

[chrish]

If you all recall, the Heller decision left "some" of the regulation of firearms up to the states.

That's what Scalia was reiterating here.

Exactly, which means if every state and DC decide that certain weapons are 'menacing', that is okey dokey is his view. That's scary. They can regulate and ban you down to a .22 or a shotgun. They haven't stopped your right to keep and bear arms, you still have a gun, just the one they approve. Why not just tell everybody to just have a tazer then, it can be used to defend yourself.

They are doing the same thing w/ this that they have attempted to argue...people don't need an AK to hunt, people don't need an AR to stop an intruder, people don't need a 15-17rd mag in their semi-auto pistol to defend themselves. It's not the point, but they are going to make it the point. They'll start w/ ammo, taxing it, like ObamaCare...then move on to a moving definition of 'menacing'.

[CrabbyAzz]

This would be more accurate...

In a controversial 2008 decision, the Supreme Court declared a handgun ban enacted by the District of Columbia unconstitutional, but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case.
“It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” he added. “Some undoubtedly are.”

[chrish]

This would be more accurate...

In a controversial 2008 decision, the Supreme Court declared a handgun ban enacted by the District of Columbia unconstitutional, but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case.
“It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” he added. “Some undoubtedly are.”

+1 ... EXACTLY ...

Wait, did I just agree w/ you? :D

It's those future cases, just like w/ everything else, that will ultimately limit our ability to live up to the meaning and purpose of the 2A. The government will ultimately attempt to decide what is 'reasonable', what is 'menacing', what is 'allowed'. And, just like w/ everything else, the people will have to decide when enough is enough. So far, the people have accepted goverment control and intrusion in every aspect of their lives. Will this be any different when it happens? Dunno. So far, residents of the left leaning states have taking it lying down, for the most part.