Scalia "Open" To Gun Control?

This is a discussion on Scalia "Open" To Gun Control? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by peckman28 Yup. They also had no idea of the internet, phone lines, cars, planes, and on and on and on. Let's ban ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 80
Like Tree76Likes

Thread: Scalia "Open" To Gun Control?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Yup. They also had no idea of the internet, phone lines, cars, planes, and on and on and on. Let's ban all technologies not present in the 1780s for fear that they were not envisioned by the founding fathers, and thus not protected by the Constitution. We don't live in a nice bubble free of risk, nor would we want to. Your interpretation of what the Founders may have envisioned is irrelevant to what the text of the Constitution actually says.
    We're talking about the application of 2A.

    The Constitution says... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say anything about weapons designed hundreds of years later capable of mass destruction.

    If it read..."the right of the people to keep and bear any and all arms,both present and future, shall not be infringed" But it doesn't say that.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    We're talking about the application of 2A.

    The Constitution says... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say anything about weapons designed hundreds of years later capable of mass destruction.

    If it read..."the right of the people to keep and bear any and all arms,both present and future, shall not be infringed" But it doesn't say that.
    Not even close. It doesn't authorize the government to go and ban anything that looks especially scary to anyone, ever. The 10th Amendment explicitly denies the federal government any powers not explicitly spelled out for it. Read the entire document and apply the basic English it is written in rather than trying to twist it to mean whatever you think it should mean.

  4. #33
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,944
    Go peckman28!
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Not even close. It doesn't authorize the government to go and ban anything that looks especially scary to anyone, ever. The 10th Amendment explicitly denies the federal government any powers not explicitly spelled out for it. Read the entire document and apply the basic English it is written in rather than trying to twist it to mean whatever you think it should mean.
    You Sir, are the one trying to add something that isn't there.

    It's the governments job to protect people and by not letting the public have a bomb is a good thing.It isn't an effort to "ban anything that looks especially scary." it's an effort to keep mass destructive devises out of the average persons hands. But just like the other devises you listed it's really a just harmless object...until it gets in the wrong hands and goes BOOM. Did you watch the tank video?
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    You Sir, are the one trying to add something that isn't there.

    It's the governments job to protect people and by not letting the public have a bomb is a good thing.It isn't an effort to "ban anything that looks especially scary." it's an effort to keep mass destructive devises out of the average persons hands. But just like the other devises you listed it's really a just harmless object...until it gets in the wrong hands and goes BOOM. Did you watch the tank video?
    What do you propose to do if the Government needs to do something that is outside of the powers granted it in the Constitution?

    Michael

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,020
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    If those in power can control the weapons and the food they control everything. Total power.
    "They" already do. Peoples across the world over the past 500 years have had to comply with the "new" way of living, or die/wither for resisting the system. (Example: native populations in the Americas, 1520 on.)

    Really...what real purpose do gun laws serve?
    To maintain such a system.

    In the simplest terms, it's still happening. And the stakes are still the same.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    You Sir, are the one trying to add something that isn't there.

    It's the governments job to protect people and by not letting the public have a bomb is a good thing.It isn't an effort to "ban anything that looks especially scary." it's an effort to keep mass destructive devises out of the average persons hands. But just like the other devises you listed it's really a just harmless object...until it gets in the wrong hands and goes BOOM. Did you watch the tank video?
    I don't have to watch the tank video. I assume someone went on a rampage and caused mayhem. Using a tank. This is the same logic used by statists to try and ban so-called "assault weapons" because one miserable excuse for a human being misused one and caused a tragedy. The use of a tank, car, bicycle, or any other object to harm others is clearly a crime. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government even empowered to "protect" you, except from foreign invasion or treason. It is quite limited in scope if you would simply read it rather than going with your view of how things "should be". "Tank boy" here should be hemmed up by the state government wherever he carried out his little scheme. The federal government is not supposed to be concerned with much of anything further than repelling foreign invasions and prohibiting barriers to trade between the states.
    mlr1m, Spirit51 and packinnova like this.

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,871
    So...those of you who think the 2A protects your right to have your own attack helicopter/tank/warship/etc - do you think you have a right to a thermonuclear device?

    If not, why? What is the legal distinction between one and the other? Where and how do you draw the line?

    I would argue that the 2A protects the right to own (keep) and wield (bear) individual arms common to the individual infantryman of the era. When written, there was little difference between the musket of the Continental Army and that of the various Militia, or those owned by citizens outside of military service. The idea was that individual citizens could band together to form an ersatz militia, with their own privately owned arms, to deal with any threats to liberty.

    By and large, crew served weapons were owned by the state (at the local, state, or Federal level) - though there were some exceptions to that. At the time of the writing of the 2A, crew served weapons would primarily include artillery and warships. Privately owned warships were "privateers" when they were useful to the country...and "pirates" when they were a threat. They were always of questionable legality, and were only tolerated (via "letters of marque") when our own pitiful Navy needed their help out of sheer necessity.

    There are limits on all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to offer living human sacrifices to your gods. You do not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And you do not have a right to bring a gun with you to visit your buddy in jail. That's all the Justice was saying.
    shooterX likes this.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Remington 870; Marlin 336 .30-30
    CT Lasers

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    So...those of you who think the 2A protects your right to have your own attack helicopter/tank/warship/etc - do you think you have a right to a thermonuclear device?

    If not, why? What is the legal distinction between one and the other? Where and how do you draw the line?

    I would argue that the 2A protects the right to own (keep) and wield (bear) individual arms common to the individual infantryman of the era. When written, there was little difference between the musket of the Continental Army and that of the various Militia, or those owned by citizens outside of military service. The idea was that individual citizens could band together to form an ersatz militia, with their own privately owned arms, to deal with any threats to liberty.

    By and large, crew served weapons were owned by the state (at the local, state, or Federal level) - though there were some exceptions to that. At the time of the writing of the 2A, crew served weapons would primarily include artillery and warships. Privately owned warships were "privateers" when they were useful to the country...and "pirates" when they were a threat. They were always of questionable legality, and were only tolerated (via "letters of marque") when our own pitiful Navy needed their help out of sheer necessity.

    There are limits on all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to offer living human sacrifices to your gods. You do not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And you do not have a right to bring a gun with you to visit your buddy in jail. That's all the Justice was saying.
    By and large those larger weapons were limited by the availability of funds, not by statute. The very fact that there are letters of marque and reprisal spelled out in the Constitution tells us that they held a status higher than "questionable legality". The 2A is not the only issue, the very concept of property rights is what is truly being discussed. By endorsing the notion that someone in possession of an instrument that could cause "too much" destruction is unacceptable you endorse the same notion that the Brady Campaign embraces. You are simply drawing the proverbial line in the sand in a different spot, and thus you've sacrificed the basic premise before the debate even begins. A free society does not concern itself with what property you are allowed to have, only that it is not used to destroy the property or persons of your fellow citizens. By and large, the text of the Constitution endorses this concept, however much our legislature has undermined it.
    phreddy likes this.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,871
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    By and large those larger weapons were limited by the availability of funds, not by statute. The very fact that there are letters of marque and reprisal spelled out in the Constitution tells us that they held a status higher than "questionable legality".
    Slavery is mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean Jesus thought slavery was a good idea. He merely recognized what was the reality of the era.

    The fact that letters of marque are mentioned in the Constitution does not mean the Framers thought that privately owned warships were a good idea, either. They were a reality of the era, and one that could be of use to us at the time, given our weak Navy.

    So...privately owned nuclear weapons OK with you?
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Remington 870; Marlin 336 .30-30
    CT Lasers

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    :SNIP:There are limits on all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to offer living human sacrifices to your gods. You do not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And you do not have a right to bring a gun with you to visit your buddy in jail. That's all the Justice was saying.
    Where exactly in the Constitution did the people give the Federal Government the power to regulate or restrict these rights that were left solely to the people and the States to regulate?

    Michael

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    Slavery is mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean Jesus thought slavery was a good idea. He merely recognized what was the reality of the era.

    The fact that letters of marque are mentioned in the Constitution does not mean the Framers thought that privately owned warships were a good idea, either. They were a reality of the era, and one that could be of use to us at the time, given our weak Navy.

    So...privately owned nuclear weapons OK with you?
    It is no less ok with me than the fact that we've trusted just one man in this country with the red button for decades now. Any privately owned nuclear power plant could be turned into its own nuclear bomb fairly easily, should we outlaw those too? The sheer amount of money it would take for anyone to go and buy a nuclear weapon is quite the deterrent in and of itself, combined with the sheer pointlessness of it. Who exactly is going to go and build such a fortune just to buy a nuclear bomb and go Dr. Strangelove on us all? It doesn't seem any more likely than that the Chinese will send their IBMs over here right now, this second. In my view, the nuclear bomb argument is a pointless strawman argument that serves absolutely no purpose.

  14. #43
    Member Array BWBracelets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    Slavery is mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean Jesus thought slavery was a good idea. He merely recognized what was the reality of the era.

    The fact that letters of marque are mentioned in the Constitution does not mean the Framers thought that privately owned warships were a good idea, either. They were a reality of the era, and one that could be of use to us at the time, given our weak Navy.

    So...privately owned nuclear weapons OK with you?
    My short answer is no because I do not believe that our government would use nuclear weapons on its own citizens. If there was a legitimate threat that they would use nukes on U.S. citizens the my answer would most definately change.

    We as citizens have the right and responsibility to keep and maintain sufficient firepower to make "the powers that be" think twice before waging war on us.

    Edited for spelling.

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array RKflorida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Deltona, Florida
    Posts
    773
    The founding fathers did have cannons. And they wrote no restrictions against them. Also, there was no restriction on large amounts of gunpowder or and regulations against owning a Gatling gun 75 years later. The example of a nuke is a little far fetched for an individual weapon considering most nations can't get their hands on one. But weapons of mass destruction are readily available to individuals with a very little knowledge.

    I don't see an easy answer to the question in theory. I feel I could argue either side, but as soon as the Government decides what weapons I can have, then I fall firmly on the side of the 2nd Amendment. And yes, it does make me uncomfortable with the individuals that seem to be infesting the nation being armed. But we can't have the freedom only for our self and not for all or it's not freedom but privilege.
    Hoganbeg and phreddy like this.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,871
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Where exactly in the Constitution did the people give the Federal Government the power to regulate or restrict these rights that were left solely to the people and the States to regulate?

    Michael
    Actually, the Supreme Court assumed upon itself the power to decide the Constitutionality of laws.

    This whole debate boils down to the definition of "arms" in the 2A. Rather than engage in endless debate - why don't we do what the Justice suggests, and read what the Founders actually wrote about that?

    The question of nuclear weapons is not a straw man. If Bill Gates and his rich buddies wanted to buy or build their own nukes for "self protection" or any other reason - should they be allowed to do so? Would that be protected by the 2A?
    shooterX likes this.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Remington 870; Marlin 336 .30-30
    CT Lasers

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb arguments against weapons of mass destruction
,
powered by mybb food share
,
powered by mybb important women in history
,
powered by mybb las vegas trade show
,
powered by mybb smuggling savage arms
,
powered by mybb women's movement
,
scalia describe his carry your own weapons policy
,

scalia gun control

,
scalia gun ownership 2009
,
scalia left gun regulation open
,

scalia on gun control

,
scalia pro gun control
Click on a term to search for related topics.