There ARE smaller suitcase nuclear bombs and could certainly be purchased if there were no laws to prevent it. Equivalent of 10 to 20 tons of TNT. It wouldn't take the wealth of Bill Gates.
Printable View
There ARE smaller suitcase nuclear bombs and could certainly be purchased if there were no laws to prevent it. Equivalent of 10 to 20 tons of TNT. It wouldn't take the wealth of Bill Gates.
Correct, the Government granted itself the power to change the Constitution. It needed to regulate things outside the lawful powers granted to it so they simply granted themselves the needed power. They regard the Constitution as a guideline instead of what it really is, a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by 10thmtn
Michael
What's this country coming too? Hey it's already there....Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
Fox News interviews Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Here's a link to Sunday's interview. The 2a discussion starts at 6:52
Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News
Hardly surprising, in his majority opinion in Heller, Scalia noted that no right is absolute, even citing Near v. Minnesota (which held that the First Amendment does not bar a law that makes it illegal to publish the positions of US ships and troops in times of war and upheld a prior restraint of that speech). He also noted in Heller that restrictions regarding who may own a weapon, where they may bear it and what types of weapons they might keep and bear were clearly allowed under the Second Amendment, but when on to say that ruling on these questions was beyond the scope of the issue in front of the court. At the same time, the Heller court held that it was not reasonable to to restrict an entire class of weapons (ie, handguns) that are uniquely suited to self defense.
There will likely be an issue by issue, case by case battle in the coming years over what what the constitutionally permitted limitations of the RKBA really are.
What is defined as a handgun uniquely suited for self defense? A .22 was not uncommon for assasinations at one time. Of course they were probably employed in a certain manner to be effective but never less even a .22 is lethal.
Im sure also that there are a number of people comfortable with using small caliber weapons for defense.
Not trying to pick it apart, just trying to understand. Im still learning here lol
Like bklynboy said. Also, Justice Scalia characterizes his approach as that of an "originalist". If they did it in 1789-1791, it's constitutional. One example he specifcally referred to is capital punishment by hanging-can't be cruel and unusual punishment today because that's the way it was done back then.
As to gun control, Scalia's view would be if there were restrictions on arms back then, it only stands to reason that similar restrictions today would not violate the Second Amendment preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, and would not "infringe" on those rights.
We should bring back harsher capital punishment. Non of this you just go to sleep junk, its not good enough for the monsters.
Then again we need to bring back capital punishment. It seems to make the news now only because it is so rare in this country. If the antis want to take our gun rights then they better be planning on some sort of big crime deterants. Not saying I will compromise one for the other. But I will keep my guns as long as crimminals have nothing to fear.
Well, I don't think our Forefathers were allowed to carry blunderbusses, so I can see them being restricted! :yup:
One of the things that has always amazed me when I hear Anti's talk about the need to restrict "assault weapons" or magazine capacities is that they begin by telling us that these evil devices are so powerful that they render LEOs and civillians unable to defend against them. They then go on to tell us that the reason they need to be restricted and restricted now is that these evil devices have proliferated to the point that they are everywhere in the criminal and nut job community. In the next breath they then go on to say that nobody needs more than a revolver or 10 round semi automatic to defend themselves. Duh, so how am I supposed to defend myself against one of those omnipresent evil AK's ???:confused:
How does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" leave any room? Can someone please clearly, simply, answer me that?Quote:
Originally Posted by From the article
Sadly, he'll not have to work very hard to convince many in congress, talkin' as much as he is.
Sadly, "conserving" the rights of the People and "conserving" the government's powers to extend way beyond original intent seem to go hand-in-hand with the contemporary conservative view of constitutional justice. :aargh4: :yell: :hand44: :disappointed: :sad2:
10thmtn,
The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
A selective aim able device that can be specifically targeted to one spot and not harm any other persons nearby.
so semi auto ... yes
nuke no
grenade no
artillery no
bomb no
this is a deadly serious turn of events.
If they do ban semi auto:
1> we will have no realistic chance of defending ourselves or our families against more than one criminal (gangs) or against criminal police or tyranny (assuming we do turn them in).
2> the majority of Americans own semi autos .. and the majority will not turn them in.
This could result is far more gun violence then one crackpot in a theater.
There are over 100 million hard core Americans with assault rifles who I am sure will go to war when so called LEO's show up on their door step to confiscate their weapons.
Considering everything else that is fooked up these days (corrupt Banks ... Gov... Wall street ... economic collapse).
For the first time I'm scared four our countries future.
Sorry, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo
An RPG or anti-tank missile launcher can be carried in your "arms." So can a Stinger anti-aircraft missile. So can a flamethrower, or a backpack nuke.
You can carry a small mortar on your person or in your arms - along with the ammo for it. How about an M79 or M203 grenade launcher?
Your line of reasoning doesn't add up - but welcome to the forum anyway!
Thanks for the welcome and thanks for your service.
I just wanted to clarify that the test is not just that it can be carried but also specifically targeted.
Anything with an explosive or incendiary round would hurt many more people that the one who is the threat.
A semi auto can be used to fire one shot into a crowd with a reasonable chance to hit the target and not others.
No way a grenade launcher or flame thrower could do this so it would be exempt from 2A protection.
... and I hope this is what Scalia meant.
Anyone know a good state to retreat to if this goes down?
I have often thought a certain degree of autonomy was possible if all us pro 2A's lived in large groups in a State where the Gov and Legislature would stand up to this Federal nonsense.
Any Ideas?
Congress does not work for the people anymore. They work for the SuperPacs and all the other supporters that got them elected. Support the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation To get heard. They weld much influence and power
Sent via Mental Power