Scalia "Open" To Gun Control? - Page 5

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 10thmtn So - I guess the 2A protects our right to have our very own thermonuclear device? How about your own private ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80
Like Tree76Likes

Thread: Scalia "Open" To Gun Control?

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    So - I guess the 2A protects our right to have our very own thermonuclear device?

    How about your own private warship? Attack helicopter? Fighter/bomber?

    How about a tank with functional weaponry? Flamethrower? Anti-tank missile launcher?

    Point is that...YES indeed...there are limits on the 2A. Just like there are limits on the 1A (libel, slander, child porn, etc).

    My personal opinion is this - citizens should be able to have weapons that are equivalent to the basic infantry standard issue weapon. That gets you to the "militia" part of the wording of the 2A.

    I'll go put my Nomex on. This should get interesting...

    I don't think this is a valid argument. Libel, slander, etc... speak to an issue where someone actually has already been harmed. Not necessarily their physical person, but their reputation and by proxy possibly their future income. A tank sitting in someones garage has harmed no one until the owner loses a screw and goes berserk. Really no different then the idiot CO shooter. His guns didn't harm anyone. He was just a nutter that lost it. Is that a legitimate reason to ban all firearms? Most of us here would argue not. What makes it different if it's a tank or a rocket or a firearm or a blasted Ford F250 driven through a crowd?
    No nomex required ;-p. Just a lively disagreement.
    TN_Mike likes this.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,341
    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?
    This is just a nutty argument. How many times has that happened? How many people were actually injured? How many times have we seen an actual EFFECTIVE reproduction on the evening news where folks run down other people with CARS in mass? Seems to me we should ban cars. After all, they weren't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution either.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,851
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    Point is that...YES indeed...there are limits on the 2A. Just like there are limits on the 1A (libel, slander, child porn, etc).
    Not to be contrary, but I disagree. The 1A and 2A are fairly clear. As are the statutes describing punishments where material harm is inflicted upon another person.

    IMO, libel/slander, in and of itself, is in no way in conflict with the 1A. Just as the holding a person responsible for murderous actions isn't in conflict with the 2A, irrespective of what the murderer used ... tank, firearm or his right thumb.

    Whatever one's philosophical bent, it's hard to claim mere possession or carrying inflicts material harm on anyone, irrespective of the tool/device.
    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, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,341
    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?
    Nuclear weapons have exactly one purpose(despite our modern twist on it ie MADD as a defensive excuse), Offensive. I think chemical weapons etc... fall into the same offensive only category btw. Every other weapon ever devised/created can be used for purely defensive purposes. What happens when someone sets off a nuke as a defensive response to an attack? Oh right...they die too. It's not exactly a defensive weapon. It's an all out offensive only, total annihilation weapon.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo
    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
    How do you explain the fact that the Federal Government during those times did not even attempt to regulate cannons that were owned by individuals? Arms does not mean hand held armament. The term arms covers all weapons. When the early Americans were asked to take up arms against their then government they were not referring to dueling pistols. The meant to arm yourself with every available weapon.

    Michael

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo View Post
    The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
    Uh, no.
    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, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #67
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo
    The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
    Uh, no.
    ^^^^^^^^ +1 ^^^^^^^

    I do believe that "Arms" is the shortened version of "Armaments"
    EDC - M&P Shield .40 OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    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.
    Yup. The government is really capable of keeping us safe from those nuclear materials. I know I'm sleeping well at night.

    Radioactive Material Smuggled Across Border | www.kfoxtv.com

    You would think something would've happened by now. There are many areas of the world that are completely lawless, including parts of nuclear-armed Pakistan. It's amazing we haven't gotten nuked yet. Again, whether or not we can have nukes is a red herring argument that is used by those who wish to restrict us by leaping to the most absurd scenarios they can think of to justify something much smaller in scale, like telling you you're not allowed to have a machine gun. The entire debate shows a complete lack of respect and understanding for property rights in general, and a disregard for the concept of negative liberty. The premise behind restrictions of any activity that does not harm others is the opposite of civilization, and should be rejected as such.
    TN_Mike likes this.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    We need to look at the reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to keep and bear arms. From all I have heard over the years it was so that the people could defend themselves from a tyrannical government (at that time England). Given that we should be able to have whatever arms necessary to accomplish that. Someone mentioned in a post that we should have at least the weapons available to basic infantry. Sounds fair but we may also need a bit more.

    I firmly believe that when the founding fathers stated "shall not be infringed" that it was in the literal sense. Not surprising that Scalia is wrong when he said "..........the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    including menacing hand-held weapons
    That would include all hand held weapons would it not? A non menacing weapon is probably not very effective.

    Michael

  11. #71
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    We need to look at the reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to keep and bear arms. From all I have heard over the years it was so that the people could defend themselves from a tyrannical government (at that time England). Given that we should be able to have whatever arms necessary to accomplish that. Someone mentioned in a post that we should have at least the weapons available to basic infantry. Sounds fair but we may also need a bit more.

    I firmly believe that when the founding fathers stated "shall not be infringed" that it was in the literal sense. Not surprising that Scalia is wrong when he said "..........the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."
    Actuall, no, it was not England as the compelling reason. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified many, many years after the war was won. 2A was to allow citizens to fight against and overthrow a tyrannical government.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,133
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Read your history. What he says is true. You can debate all day long about what infringed means but when you get down to it guns, how they are carried, and interpreted by SCOTUS and Federal Courts has been going on for over 200 years. I am not agreeing that guns and how they carried should be interpreted, just that the judge is correct in his statement.
    True, they have been interpreted and regulated. And the fact remains that neither should have ever happened. At all.

    The Second Amendment is in place and it says what it says specifically so as to ensure the citizens access to the same weapons that the standing Army has. This is so, if the need arises, and I think it will one day, for the citizenry to over throw a government that has become tyrannical, the citizens would be on equal footing with the Army should the Army chose to side with the tyrannical government. (NOT England. We had already defeated England when the US Constitution was ratified. The Founders specifically had our own governement in mind when the Second Amendment was written.)

    Rea in the strictest possible way, every citizen should be able to have a full auto M4, or a tank with its ammo, or an Apache Attack Helicopter or a naval war ship if they so choose. Now, some of those may seem absurd. But, the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, means what it says and says what it means. It is written very plainly and quite clearly. Shall not be infringed means, the government has no say in what you own or carry or store in your home. Period.

    It's only because we have slowly rolled over and taken it from the government for so long that we feel it's "OK" for there to be "reasonable gun control". All "reasonable gun control" is, is us, letting them infringe on a right that is spelled out in the Constitution. One that they are specifically forbidden from infringing upon in any way, shape or form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo View Post
    The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
    Uh....no, not it does not. The word "arms" referred to weapons. All weapons. Not simply ones that could be carried in the arms of a human. I've NEVER heard that assertion before and quite frankly, I am embarrassed for you that you would believe it so. Please read the Federalist Papers. They are a series of essays written by the men who wrote our Constitution where in they explain the meaning and intent of all the parts of the document. No where in them is the assertion you just made mentioned.
    Dadsnugun likes this.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  13. #73
    Member Array BWBracelets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    87
    I find it interesting that he said the following in reference to Chief Justice Roberts opinion on Obamacare:

    "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

    But he feels there is room to regard "shall not be infringed" as "we'll see...it will have to be decided."

    If you ask me...enemies of freedom like this guy have got to go.

    www.getcorded.com
    TN_Mike likes this.

  14. #74
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    174
    I think its helpful to read or listen to the full conversation. Not everything is covered by the constitution and its left up to the democratically elected legislature to make these rules. The argument that people should have attack helicopters, grenade launchers, and tanks is ridiculous. As Justice Scalia said, there were even restrictions back then, and nothing is absolute, not even free speech. So everyone is asking where do we draw the line then? It's up to the people and the state legislatures....subject to the right to bear arms cannont be taken away, but restricted. I know this won't be popular here, but we do restrict fellons from having weapons.


    WALLACE: Let's turn to an issue that is the news right now with the massacre in Colorado. And that is gun control.

    You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms?

    SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.

    So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where --

    WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute, SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, 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 there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.

    WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you're a textualist?

    SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.



    He also said, the constitution does not protect against wiretapping and the right to privacy..

    WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965?

    SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.

    WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was.

    SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was -- that was wrong. In the earlier case, the court had said the opposite. Look, the way the Fourth Amendment reads that people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    And the first time my court had a case involving wiretapping. It said that's not covered by the Fourth Amendment. There can be state laws against it and most states had laws. But it's not persons, houses, papers and affects is not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed that, I don't know, 20 years later or so in a wave of non-originalism. Constitution means what it ought to mean. Well, it simply doesn't cover that, which means that it's left to -- it's left to democratic choice, as most things are, even important things like abortion.

    WALLACE: When you say democratic, that's small d meaning let the legislature decide.

    SCALIA: Exactly. Exactly. Even the important questions and not just insignificant stuff, but even important questions like abortion.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    I don't see a problem with what he said. There are limitations on all of the amendments. The worry is that the anti's will try to take it too far so that we cannot reasonably defend ourselves against tyranny if such a time comes.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored 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 constitution
,
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 taurus firearms
,
powered by mybb women power
,
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.