PDA

View Full Version : Scalia: Guns May be Regulated




cajuncocoa
07-29-2012, 09:34 AM
By John Aloysius Farrell
July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.


Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

LibertyEagle
07-29-2012, 09:42 AM
What the hell are "menacing hand-held weapons"?

Carlybee
07-29-2012, 09:44 AM
What the hell are "menacing hand-held weapons"?

The ones that are owned by anyone except the police and military.

Expatriate
07-29-2012, 09:51 AM
What the hell are "menacing hand-held weapons"?

Are the mundanes even allowed to own non-hand-held weapons any more?

And isn't the whole point of a weapon to be menacing?

JK/SEA
07-29-2012, 09:53 AM
seems he doesn't understand the spirit of the 2nd am. and it appears this asshat is all for making us slaves.

The founders understood that tech advancements were/are going to happen, and they still made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...and PERIOD.

jkr
07-29-2012, 09:54 AM
"now let him enforce it"

Matt Collins
07-29-2012, 09:54 AM
To Hell with this guy, the Supreme Court, and the federal government as a whole!

aloneinthewilderness
07-29-2012, 09:54 AM
But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize.I'd love to see some examples of the "frightening weapons" that were available in those times. Is the language in the Second Amendment really that confusing to an "originalist scholar" such as himself? I thought he was one of the few we could sort of count on to vote the right way when it came gun rights.

Kluge
07-29-2012, 09:57 AM
Thought he was supposed to be a conservative.

FrankRep
07-29-2012, 09:59 AM
http://zionstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gun-Laws-Prevent-Shootings.jpg

JK/SEA
07-29-2012, 10:00 AM
can you hear that?.....thats the sound of our chains being forged.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
07-29-2012, 10:13 AM
Justice Antonin Scalia

Can go fuck himself.


"Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

He fundamentally misunderstands his intended job.

Working Poor
07-29-2012, 10:14 AM
I hear the sounds of civil war...

phill4paul
07-29-2012, 10:51 AM
But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

I would like to see the references/case study for this. Many of the earliest laws mandated that citizens own and carry firearms. It wasn't until 1837 that the first 'gun control' law surfaces. Georgia passed a law banning handguns. It was ruled unconstitutional and struck down. Then in 1927 Congress passed a law banning the mailing of concealable handguns. Then came the Federal Firearm act of 1938. It would seem that gun control laws are a product of the 20th century. I doubt many of the founders were around at that time.

Matt Collins
07-29-2012, 10:53 AM
I hear the sounds of civil war...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9VhD4SccSE

presence
07-29-2012, 11:04 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/InvertedRedPentagram/Old-Come-and-Take-It.gif

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 11:08 AM
I hear the sounds of civil war...

Non-sense. I don't want anything to do with the Potomac. If you mean War of Independence, sure, but hell no to any Civil War.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2012, 11:15 AM
What the hell are "menacing hand-held weapons"?


I'd love to see some examples of the "frightening weapons" that were available in those times. Is the language in the Second Amendment really that confusing to an "originalist scholar" such as himself? I thought he was one of the few we could sort of count on to vote the right way when it came gun rights.

Just saw the interview. He cited a (single) law from the early US which prohibited walking around with weapons with the purpose of frightening people. Seems more like a law about intent rather than a ban on the weapon itself.

Swarmed
07-29-2012, 11:22 AM
Translation: "Well what the Constitution meant to say was...."

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 11:23 AM
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

Sorry if I, and everything written historically by the authors of said amendment in regards to said amendment, disagree.

donnay
07-29-2012, 11:24 AM
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices

Those 13 words are the most full of shit claims I have seen in a long time.

It should have gone like this:

Justice [sic] Antonin Scalia, bought and paid for to be a Supreme [sic] Court shill for the globalists agenda.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 11:27 AM
Just saw the interview. He cited a (single) law from the early US which prohibited walking around with weapons with the purpose of frightening people. Seems more like a law about intent rather than a ban on the weapon itself.

I assume he also uses that same putrid logic when for instance, it comes to the first Amendment, a la Alien and Sedition Acts? Remember, the Alien and Sedition Acts were never found 'unconstitutional' by the SCOTUS, they were simply lapsed when Jefferson won office. It is to be noted here that this does precede Marbury v Madison, so anything before 1803 using the idea of Federal Judicial Review is flawed, as well, even if they were to appeal it to the SCOTUS, it would have been ruled constitutional because the justices were all Federalists!

Scalia is simply an idiot, and if not an idiot, a repugnant tyrant. In any event, if you want to use originalism, you don't look at how the SCOTUS acted, or whatever, you look at the intent and debate of the actual thing you are making a judgment of. That is to say, you read the author of the amendment, you read the debate over the intention of the amendment by those arguing for it and against it, and you use logic to ascertain its meaning. It's pretty clear what 'shall not be infringed' means. In any event, any originalist view of the 2nd amendment has to conclude that the intent of the amendment is to have the citizenry being capable or more well-armed, than Government forces or agents to prevent tyranny, or at worst, wage war against the tyrants. Any other view is simply preposterous.

kathy88
07-29-2012, 11:27 AM
Translation: "Well what the Constitution meant to say was...."Welcome to the forums.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2012, 11:34 AM
Sorry if I, and everything written historically by the authors of said amendment in regards to said amendment, disagree.

I would point out that those are the words of the author of the article. He conveniently leaves actual quotes of Scalia at a bare minimum. The article is pro-gun-control spin.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2012, 11:39 AM
... In any event, if you want to use originalism, you don't look at how the SCOTUS acted, or whatever, you look at the intent and debate of the actual thing you are making a judgment of. That is to say, you read the author of the amendment, you read the debate over the intention of the amendment by those arguing for it and against it, and you use logic to ascertain its meaning. ...

They actually had an interesting discussion on that. I would recommend watching the actual interview rather than get inflamed by a leftist media hack's spin. (Then you can rip Scalia apart) ;)

donnay
07-29-2012, 11:48 AM
I would point out that those are the words of the author of the article. He conveniently leaves actual quotes of Scalia at a bare minimum. The article is pro-gun-control spin.

Leftist/Rightist it makes no difference. The agenda is clear, they want you defenseless. Romney is for gun control as well as Obama. Once people understand that, it makes no difference how it is presented.

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 11:51 AM
I would point out that those are the words of the author of the article. He conveniently leaves actual quotes of Scalia at a bare minimum. The article is pro-gun-control spin.

I asked Dr. Kevin Gutzman what he thought of that paragraph. He responded with:


Of course it does. Someone has to regulate them. What he should have said is that the Constitution leaves complete authority in this area to the states.

Which is true assuming the federal government believes in the 10th amendment. BUT, what are the odds the federal government thinks regulation should be left to the states and people (or do they think they are the ones to assert authority over "regulation")?

donnay
07-29-2012, 12:02 PM
Leftist/Rightist it makes no difference. The agenda is clear, they want you defenseless. Romney is for gun control as well as Obama. Once people understand that, it makes no difference how it is presented.


Case in point:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZRAt9PNeI&feature=player_embedded


ETA what William Kristol said:

“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” Kristol told Fox News. “I don’t think they have a right to semiautomatic, quasi–machine guns that can shoot hundred of bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.”

jkr
07-29-2012, 12:26 PM
didnt one of these clowns ban nunchukus in the STATE of ny?

thats 2 STICKS tied together folks...

Matt Collins
07-29-2012, 12:30 PM
Case in point:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZRAt9PNeI&feature=player_embedded


ETA what William Kristol said:

“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” Kristol told Fox News. “I don’t think they have a right to semiautomatic, quasi–machine guns that can shoot hundred of bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.”That's because he is a Wilsonian Progressive who is in the Republican Party instead of the Democrat Party where he belongs.

donnay
07-29-2012, 12:35 PM
That's because he is a Wilsonian Progressive who is in the Republican Party instead of the Democrat Party where he belongs.

These are the neocons who have hijacked the Republican Party. These are the very people who blacked out, ignored and besmirched Dr. Paul.

Philhelm
07-29-2012, 12:42 PM
Another person to add to my watchlist.

jmdrake
07-29-2012, 01:10 PM
What the hell are "menacing hand-held weapons"?

We'll here's a gun that's definitely not menacing.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mgo/lowres/mgon431l.jpg

Possibly menacing.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1001/potato-gun-potato-demotivational-poster-1264612293.jpg

jmdrake
07-29-2012, 01:12 PM
By John Aloysius Farrell
July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

So tell me again why it matters if a republican takes the Whitehouse?

FrankRep
07-29-2012, 01:14 PM
So tell me again why it matters if a republican takes the Whitehouse?
Is Ron Paul a Republican?

jmdrake
07-29-2012, 01:19 PM
Is Ron Paul a Republican?

Sure. And Barack Obama and Walter Williams are both black men. And? Just having a republican for the sake of having a republican president makes about as much sense as having a black president for the sake of having a black president. The whole "We must have a republican president even if he sucks as bad as Mitt Romney because of the SCOTUS" rings hollow when you have John Roberts upholding Obamacare and Scalia endorsing gun control.

Dr.3D
07-29-2012, 01:29 PM
Sure. And Barack Obama and Walter Williams are both black men. And? Just having a republican for the sake of having a republican president makes about as much sense as having a black president for the sake of having a black president. The whole "We must have a republican president even if he sucks as bad as Mitt Romney because of the SCOTUS" rings hollow when you have John Roberts upholding Obamacare and Scalia endorsing gun control.
Many here are not old enough to understand this is how it's been for many decades. When I was younger, I thought perhaps we could change how things are and we tried and tried, but to no avail. I am of the opinion, there will be no change in the way things are, till people wake up and understand, we have been trying for more than 50 years to change things and it isn't going to change till we can get rid of the party system.

Matt Collins
07-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Sure. And Barack Obama and Walter Williams are both black men. And? Just having a republican for the sake of having a republican president makes about as much sense as having a black president for the sake of having a black president. The whole "We must have a republican president even if he sucks as bad as Mitt Romney because of the SCOTUS" rings hollow when you have John Roberts upholding Obamacare and Scalia endorsing gun control.Exactly. Warren is a prime example of this too.

cajuncocoa
07-29-2012, 02:07 PM
Sure. And Barack Obama and Walter Williams are both black men. And? Just having a republican for the sake of having a republican president makes about as much sense as having a black president for the sake of having a black president. The whole "We must have a republican president even if he sucks as bad as Mitt Romney because of the SCOTUS" rings hollow when you have John Roberts upholding Obamacare and Scalia endorsing gun control.+rep

angelatc
07-29-2012, 02:29 PM
But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

That was presumably before the 14th Amendment.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 02:55 PM
I asked Dr. Kevin Gutzman what he thought of that paragraph. He responded with:



Which is true assuming the federal government believes in the 10th amendment. BUT, what are the odds the federal government thinks regulation should be left to the states and people (or do they think they are the ones to assert authority over "regulation")?

I disagree with Gutzman. If he is using regulate in the 18th Century vernacular then, I have no problem, but I doubt it. In that case, Gutzman is quite far off the mark - no regulation is needed. The only laws needed can be written down on a half sheet of college rule paper - no murder, no thievery, no fraud, no initiation of force, no assault, etc. This idea that every little industry, or item in society needs its own laws is RIDICULOUS. It's tyrannous if it's done by a Government that asserts its control hundreds of miles away, as well as one that asserts its control five minutes away.

pcosmar
07-29-2012, 03:00 PM
They keep pushing.
They may find that even generally peaceful people have limits.

King George did.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

Brett85
07-29-2012, 03:01 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 03:04 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

People do. ;)

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 03:07 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

Sure, why not? Where do you draw the line? What about folks who own entire shipping tankers of gasoline, or munitions? People should be able to own C4, dynamite, and all sorts of explosives. I'd rather not have seen nuclear weapons ever developed, but thanks to Government we can't put that one back in the holster. If history has shown anything, M.A.D. is a very good deterrent. It's the reason why the U.S. is so vehement against Iran and anyone else getting a nuke, not because they would use it, but because then they can't bully them around anymore. Look at N.K. for instance.

RickyJ
07-29-2012, 03:12 PM
Supreme Court Justices may be regulated too.

We reserve the right to start over anytime government becomes tyrannical.

pcosmar
07-29-2012, 03:19 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

I am in favor of NO Limits and NO Restrictions.

Just what and who do you want to limit exactly.

And don't go on about the unrealistic extreme of Nuclear Weapons.

What actual, practical and useable weapons do you propose restricting or regulating. Exactly.
And Who should be restricted and regulated.


I am in favor of restricting and regulating the Government,, not the other way round.

cajuncocoa
07-29-2012, 03:32 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?If what we have heard about dirty bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) can be trusted, there may already be people who own nuclear weapons...what difference does it make if they own them legally? Once you start regulating, you've started going down a slippery slope that won't end until no one is allowed to own weapons of any kind.

donnay
07-29-2012, 03:33 PM
I am in favor of NO Limits and NO Restrictions.

Just what and who do you want to limit exactly.

And don't go on about the unrealistic extreme of Nuclear Weapons.

What actual, practical and useable weapons do you propose restricting or regulating. Exactly.
And Who should be restricted and regulated.


I am in favor of restricting and regulating the Government,, not the other way round.


Amen! +rep

Brett85
07-29-2012, 03:53 PM
I am in favor of NO Limits and NO Restrictions.

Just what and who do you want to limit exactly.

And don't go on about the unrealistic extreme of Nuclear Weapons.

What actual, practical and useable weapons do you propose restricting or regulating. Exactly.
And Who should be restricted and regulated.


I am in favor of restricting and regulating the Government,, not the other way round.

I don't believe that the federal government should be involved in any kind of gun or weapons control. I believe that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from being involved in this issue at all, and all federal gun control laws should be repealed. But, I would think that there could be a few very minimal laws at the state level. I'm opposed to virtually all gun control laws, as I don't believe there should be waiting periods, bans on assault rifles, etc. However, I would think that the states could decide what limits there are on the 2nd amendment, if any. The states could decide whether there's limits to the 2nd amendment, such as whether nuclear weapons, bombs, etc, are actually part of the 2nd amendment or not.

GunnyFreedom
07-29-2012, 03:53 PM
Just saw the interview. He cited a (single) law from the early US which prohibited walking around with weapons with the purpose of frightening people. Seems more like a law about intent rather than a ban on the weapon itself.

Yeah, that's a completely different thing. Local laws at State County and Municipal level, making it a crime to point weapons at people with the intent to menace and terrorise could be constitutionally enacted without any sort of gun ban whatsoever. They may even be not that bad of an idea depending on what you are dealing with, since if someone holds me at gunpoint and tells me to dance for the spectators or die, it would be nice if the law recognized him as doing something wrong. Of course, we already have "communicating a threat," but adding a live weapon to that communication in order to force compliance that would otherwise be withheld doesn't sound like that bad of an idea to me. Still, there is probably a better/more narrow way to craft a law criminalizing forced compliance at gunpoint than brandishing laws, which can be easily abused for purposes not originally intended.

donnay
07-29-2012, 04:00 PM
I don't believe that the federal government should be involved in any kind of gun or weapons control. I believe that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from being involved in this issue at all, and all federal gun control laws should be repealed. But, I would think that there could be a few very minimal laws at the state level. I'm opposed to virtually all gun control laws, as I don't believe there should be waiting periods, bans on assault rifles, etc. However, I would think that the states could decide what limits there are on the 2nd amendment, if any. The states could decide whether there's limits to the 2nd amendment, such as whether nuclear weapons, bombs, etc, are actually part of the 2nd amendment or not.

You mean like living in a state like NY where Chuckie Schumer is? What if all fifty states have a couple of Chuckie Schumers?

What we need is people to clearly understand the second amendment--it needs no interpretations!

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 04:04 PM
You mean like living in a state like NY where Chuckie Schumer is? What if all fifty states have a couple of Chuckie Schumers?

What we need is people to clearly understand the second amendment--it needs no interpretations!

We also need the revival of the Sons of Liberty, in all its former purity and glory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Philip_Dawe_(attributed),_The_Bostonians_Paying_th e_Excise-man,_or_Tarring_and_Feathering_(1774).jpg/220px-Philip_Dawe_(attributed),_The_Bostonians_Paying_th e_Excise-man,_or_Tarring_and_Feathering_(1774).jpg

Can you imagine this in today's age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasp%C3%A9e_Affair

Brett85
07-29-2012, 04:10 PM
You mean like living in a state like NY where Chuckie Schumer is? What if all fifty states have a couple of Chuckie Schumers?

What we need is people to clearly understand the second amendment--it needs no interpretations!

I'm not saying that the kinds of gun control laws that Chuck Schumer supports wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. I only referenced things like nuclear weapons and bombs, not any kind of firearm.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 04:12 PM
I'm not saying that the kinds of gun control laws that Chuck Schumer supports wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. I only referenced things like nuclear weapons and bombs, not any kind of firearm.

You seem to be under the illusion of fearing your fellow neighbors, more than the distant tyrants. You somehow believe that these psychopaths who hold monopolized power, control, force, and coercion are of less danger, and or, more trustworthy, and diligent and thus, it is acceptable for them to bear arms and weapons which are considered too 'deadly' or 'destructive' for the commoner. Such a misguided state of mind.

RickyJ
07-29-2012, 04:16 PM
If what we have heard about dirty bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) can be trusted, there may already be people who own nuclear weapons...what difference does it make if they own them legally? Once you start regulating, you've started going down a slippery slope that won't end until no one is allowed to own weapons of any kind.

Correct. Anyone that has the means and the intelligence to attempt to make a nuclear bomb isn't going to ask first if what they are doing is legal or not, they know it isn't. It won't be long before non-nation entities possess true nuclear bombs, not just dirty bombs, if they don't already. To think that won't happen because of a law is absolutely ludicrous.

Brett85
07-29-2012, 04:16 PM
You seem to be under the illusion of fearing your fellow neighbors, more than the distant tyrants. You somehow believe that these psychopaths who hold monopolized power, control, force, and coercion are of less danger, and or, more trustworthy, and diligent and thus, it is acceptable for them to bear arms and weapons which are considered too 'deadly' or 'destructive' for the commoner. Such a misguided state of mind.

Yes, I suppose I'm a "statist" since I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies to nuclear weapons; even though I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles, oppose waiting periods, oppose laws that bar ex felons from owning guns, and oppose virtually all other gun control laws.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 04:20 PM
Yes, I suppose I'm a "statist" since I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies to nuclear weapons; even though I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles, oppose waiting periods, oppose laws that bar ex felons from owning guns, and oppose virtually all other gun control laws.

Why do you trust folks like Harry Reid, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, et. al. with nuclear weapons, but when it comes to your fellow commoners you look at them with fear, and distrust? The booboosie at least still understands its wrong to commit murder, thievery, etc. between people without fancy uniforms and badges, which is more than you can say for Government who is the exact opposite. In any event, who killed more people in the last 100 years? Governments are DEATH MACHINES.

That's why I don't understand you supporting a ban on owning nuclear weapons for commoners, but it's just dandy for the Government.

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Yes, I suppose I'm a "statist" since I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies to nuclear weapons; even though I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles, oppose waiting periods, oppose laws that bar ex felons from owning guns, and oppose virtually all other gun control laws.

The 2nd amendment as written and based on the reasons it was written should apply to Nuclear Weapons. Think about it. People already do control Nukes, but only at the Federal Government Level. What protection do the states and the people have against the federal governments Nukes? Hell I bet if Lincoln had an arsenal back in the day he would have used them.

Brett85
07-29-2012, 04:33 PM
I guess we'll never know for sure whether our founding fathers would've meant for the 2nd amendment to actually cover things like bombs and nuclear weapons. But, I just don't think that Scalia is some kind of "statist" for suggesting that the 2nd amendment isn't completely unlimited. He was in the majority that ruled that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to own hand guns. Had a liberal judge been in his place, people wouldn't even have the right to own handguns, and we wouldn't even have a 2nd amendment at all.

anaconda
07-29-2012, 04:34 PM
We need to start electing lawmakers that can legislate around SCOTUS decisions. I am not in favor of "regulations" that hand over all of the most deadly weapons to the globalist corporate run military, to whom their allegiance lies, despite their oath to defend the Constitution.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 04:36 PM
I guess we'll never know for sure whether our founding fathers would've meant for the 2nd amendment to actually cover things like bombs and nuclear weapons. But, I just don't think that Scalia is some kind of "statist" for suggesting that the 2nd amendment isn't completely unlimited. He was in the majority that ruled that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to own hand guns. Had a liberal judge been in his place, people wouldn't even have the right to own handguns, and we wouldn't even have a 2nd amendment at all.

Actually, yes the Founding Fathers did mean that for the 2nd Amendment. It was perfectly legal in their time to own a cannon, which was the equivalent to artillery, bombs, and yes, nuclear weapons today. Indeed, many militia's and commoners owned in partnership armories with powder, cannon, and ball.

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 04:36 PM
I guess we'll never know for sure whether our founding fathers would've meant for the 2nd amendment to actually cover things like bombs and nuclear weapons. But, I just don't think that Scalia is some kind of "statist" for suggesting that the 2nd amendment isn't completely unlimited. He was in the majority that ruled that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to own hand guns. Had a liberal judge been in his place, people wouldn't even have the right to own handguns, and we wouldn't even have a 2nd amendment at all.

I just don't think he, or anyone else in the Federal Government, believes it's up to the States and the People - NOT the Federal Government. Some could argue, perhaps successfully, that he would be a statist if he believes that.

Brett85
07-29-2012, 04:44 PM
I just don't think he, or anyone else in the Federal Government, believes it's up to the States and the People - NOT the Federal Government. Some could argue, perhaps successfully, that he would be a statist if he believes that.

I'm not sure whether Scalia was referring to federal regulations or state regulations. My point was simply that any regulations should come at the state level. The federal government has no authority to have any say in the matter.

Brett85
07-29-2012, 04:46 PM
Actually, yes the Founding Fathers did mean that for the 2nd Amendment. It was perfectly legal in their time to own a cannon, which was the equivalent to artillery, bombs, and yes, nuclear weapons today. Indeed, many militia's and commoners owned in partnership armories with powder, cannon, and ball.

Interesting. I didn't realize that.

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 04:46 PM
I'm not sure whether Scalia was referring to federal regulations or state regulations. My point was simply that any regulations should come at the state level. The federal government has no authority to have any say in the matter.

You and I know that, but the Feds don't. :)

donnay
07-29-2012, 05:02 PM
I'm not saying that the kinds of gun control laws that Chuck Schumer supports wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. I only referenced things like nuclear weapons and bombs, not any kind of firearm.

If I choose to buy an Abrams tank, that should be my right to have an Abrams tank. Whatever the military is allowed to have we should be able to have the same for our defense.

Besides, I think no one should have nuclear weapons--however, just like Iran is surround by countries that have nukes, they have a right to have them to protect and defend themselves.

oyarde
07-29-2012, 05:12 PM
Scalia , pfft , My weapons may not be regulated .

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 05:35 PM
Interesting. I didn't realize that.

Indeed, so many don't.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/writings/pistols-and-crime-in-early-america.pdf

This is a decently well written piece, pay particular attention to footnote #2, never mind the long storied history of the privateers.

I doubt many people even knew that Benjamin Franklin ran his own militia and even bought 6 cannons from New York to defend Pennsylvania.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2012, 05:46 PM
Nukes and bioweapons are indiscriminate offensive weapons.

Thus I consider them to be in completely different realm anyway as opposed to defensive weapons, like small arms.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2012, 05:48 PM
Why do you trust folks like Harry Reid, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, et. al. with nuclear weapons, but when it comes to your fellow commoners you look at them with fear, and distrust? The booboosie at least still understands its wrong to commit murder, thievery, etc. between people without fancy uniforms and badges, which is more than you can say for Government who is the exact opposite. In any event, who killed more people in the last 100 years? Governments are DEATH MACHINES.

That's why I don't understand you supporting a ban on owning nuclear weapons for commoners, but it's just dandy for the Government.

I'm all for banning the government from possessing nukes, bio or chemical weapons.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 05:56 PM
I'm all for banning the government from possessing nukes, bio or chemical weapons.

So would I, as long as the citizens are not likewise banned.

KingRobbStark
07-29-2012, 05:59 PM
According to statist logic guns would disappear if they were outlawed, but that would beg the question: Would possession of guns by police still be necessary? If yes, the law is a failure.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2012, 09:00 PM
...Where do you draw the line? ...

Here's my personal take. There are zoning laws, and they should be the model. It's not about weapons, it's about risk, especially during unforeseen accidents. Do I fear your gun going off accidentally? No. That is not reasonable. Can you refine gasoline next door, such that in the event of an accidental explosion you will destroy a city block? No, sorry, you can't do that, too much risk of your incompetence effecting me in a dramatic way. If there is a fire, do I worry about ammunition going off next door? No, I don't worry about that, it's not much of a real risk. If you have a live 1000lb bomb in your attic, it is a concern.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 10:26 PM
Here's my personal take. There are zoning laws, and they should be the model. It's not about weapons, it's about risk, especially during unforeseen accidents. Do I fear your gun going off accidentally? No. That is not reasonable. Can you refine gasoline next door, such that in the event of an accidental explosion you will destroy a city block? No, sorry, you can't do that, too much risk of your incompetence effecting me in a dramatic way. If there is a fire, do I worry about ammunition going off next door? No, I don't worry about that, it's not much of a real risk. If you have a live 1000lb bomb in your attic, it is a concern.

That's why you have the price system to determine an individuals acceptable risks. None of your rights have been violated by someone refining gas next door. There has to be some intent of violating your rights in order to process a crime. If someone wants to take the risk of living next door to a gas refinery (which the property would be A LOT cheaper), why should you deny them such a choice? The refiner has not violated their rights and vice versa.

Zoning laws are a bunch of protectionist crap. Set up to destroy competition, as well as property rights. Its none of the Governments damn business where someone should or can build a residential complex, a financial complex, business, extractors, miners, etc.

Now, the person or partnership owning the refinery still has no right to interfere in the property rights of their neighbors, which means they are still responsible if they damage, or pollute another's property. If we actually followed NP Lockean property rights and contract in this country refineries would be a lot more safe precisely because of things like nuisance laws.

LibertyEagle
07-29-2012, 10:28 PM
I listened to an interview with Scalia earlier tonight on CSPAN. It was very interesting. I highly recommend it to everyone else.

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Saw this recently on one of my favorite FB pages (http://www.facebook.com/MisesvsKeynes):

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/391220_3299085490594_1750786254_n.jpg

The Gold Standard
07-29-2012, 10:29 PM
Had a liberal judge been in his place, people wouldn't even have the right to own handguns, and we wouldn't even have a 2nd amendment at all.

Wrong. Every human on the planet has the right to arm themselves no matter what any government says.

LibertyEagle
07-29-2012, 10:31 PM
Saw this recently on one of my favorite FB pages (http://www.facebook.com/MisesvsKeynes):



There aren't any zoning laws in Houston?

MJU1983
07-29-2012, 10:35 PM
There aren't any zoning laws in Houston?

Not in the traditional sense, like every other city.

GuerrillaXXI
07-29-2012, 11:44 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?As I've said on other threads, I think a line can be justifiably drawn at weapons that will ALWAYS violate the rights of innocent people whenever they're used. That basically means weapons that are indiscriminate in their effects: nukes, germ weapons, etc.

The important thing is that citizens have sufficient weaponry to overthrow their government if they decide they don't like it anymore and it refuses to step down. As long as citizens have weapons that are sufficient to do this, then IMO the spirit of the Second Amendment is upheld. Weapons such as nukes aren't required for a population to achieve a balance of power with its government, since a government can't use indiscriminate weapons on its own territory without destroying itself.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-29-2012, 11:57 PM
As I've said on other threads, I think a line can be justifiably drawn at weapons that will ALWAYS violate the rights of innocent people whenever they're used. That basically means weapons that are indiscriminate in their effects: nukes, germ weapons, etc.

The important thing is that citizens have sufficient weaponry to overthrow their government if they decide they don't like it anymore and it refuses to step down. As long as citizens have weapons that are sufficient to do this, then IMO the spirit of the Second Amendment is upheld. Weapons such as nukes aren't required for a population to achieve a balance of power with its government, since a government can't use indiscriminate weapons on its own territory without destroying itself.

I disagree with the last part. Lincoln used Scorched Earth policies in the South during the War Between the States which destroyed 'their own territory' since they were the victors. I doubt he would have hesitated if he had the means to use a nuclear weapon. Charleston would probably have met the same fate as Hiroshima.

The argument can be made with respect to germ weapons, and you do have a point with respect to nuclear weapons, its just I don't think that one is ever going to be put back in the holster. I've said before and in this same thread, that I wish the weapon was never developed, but we have Government to thank for that one.

KingRobbStark
07-29-2012, 11:59 PM
What we need is to regulate the Supreme Court. I mean why are they called "Supreme"? That's some elitist shit.

KingRobbStark
07-30-2012, 12:01 AM
As I've said on other threads, I think a line can be justifiably drawn at weapons that will ALWAYS violate the rights of innocent people whenever they're used. That basically means weapons that are indiscriminate in their effects: nukes, germ weapons, etc.

The important thing is that citizens have sufficient weaponry to overthrow their government if they decide they don't like it anymore and it refuses to step down. As long as citizens have weapons that are sufficient to do this, then IMO the spirit of the Second Amendment is upheld. Weapons such as nukes aren't required for a population to achieve a balance of power with its government, since a government can't use indiscriminate weapons on its own territory without destroying itself.

Have you ever been inside a mind of a dictator?

GuerrillaXXI
07-30-2012, 12:13 AM
I disagree with the last part. Lincoln used Scorched Earth policies in the South during the War Between the States which destroyed 'their own territory' since they were the victors. I doubt he would have hesitated if he had the means to use a nuclear weapon. Charleston would probably have met the same fate as Hiroshima.The war between the North and South was basically a war between two separate countries. If nukes had been available back then, one country could have nuked the other without causing casualties to its own people. That wouldn't be the case in a modern civil uprising, since the federal government is "embedded" in the population. If the federal government started nuking its own cities, it would kill many federal employees and contractors (and their family members and friends), kill military people and police, decimate the economy the federal government depends on, and generally destroy the whole country -- all without even getting rid of all the insurgents, who'd be scattered among the whole population of the country. It would be the equivalent of a mass suicide bombing perpetrated by the government.


The argument can be made with respect to germ weapons, and you do have a point with respect to nuclear weapons, its just I don't think that one is ever going to be put back in the holster. I've said before and in this same thread, that I wish the weapon was never developed, but we have Government to thank for that one.I also wish nukes had never been developed. I don't think anyone has the right to own a weapon that can't be used without harming the innocent. The most extreme case of this would be a doomsday weapon: if someone presses a button, everyone on earth dies. If such a weapon existed, would anyone have the right to own it? I can't see how.

GuerrillaXXI
07-30-2012, 12:15 AM
Have you ever been inside a mind of a dictator?No, but I can't imagine why one would want to topple himself from power. That's what he'd do if he nuked his own territory, as explained above.

KingRobbStark
07-30-2012, 12:21 AM
No, but I can't imagine why one would want to topple himself from power. That's what he'd do if he nuked his own territory, as explained above.

He would if he had everything to lose.

GuerrillaXXI
07-30-2012, 12:28 AM
He would if he had everything to lose.It's certainly possible that a dictator would be that crazy, but keep in mind that dictators themselves can't launch those weapons on their own. They need the cooperation of the people who work at the missile silos, etc. I kind of doubt that most of those people would obey orders to kill their own comrades, family members, and friends in cities around the country, even if they had a murderous hatred for the insurgents.

This is basically moot anyway, since nothing is certain in life (except death). If some wacko dictator ever decides to turn the US into a massive nuclear suicide bomb, then so be it. That would be better than for the country to continue to exist as a giant prison.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-30-2012, 12:30 AM
It's certainly possible that a dictator would be that crazy, but keep in mind that dictators themselves can't launch those weapons on their own. They need the cooperation of the people who work at the missile silos, etc. I kind of doubt that most of those people would obey orders to kill their own comrades, family members, and friends in cities around the country, even if they had a murderous hatred for the insurgents.

Did you miss 1861-1865? Brothers killing brothers. Fathers killing sons.

Dr.3D
07-30-2012, 12:32 AM
It's certainly possible that a dictator would be that crazy, but keep in mind that dictators themselves can't launch those weapons on their own. They need the cooperation of the people who work at the missile silos, etc. I kind of doubt that most of those people would obey orders to kill their own comrades, family members, and friends in cities around the country, even if they had a murderous hatred for the insurgents.

Wouldn't that depend on what kind of lies they had been told? These guys are usually buried deep underground and have little to no contact with the outside world. They could be told that their family members, friends and comrades had already been killed by the "insurgents" and there was no choice but to destroy the "insurgency".

GuerrillaXXI
07-30-2012, 12:39 AM
Did you miss 1861-1865? Brothers killing brothers. Fathers killing sons.Sure -- if they're killing family members who are on the side of the enemy. That's a far cry from the federal government nuking its own cities, thereby destroying its own military bases, National Guard armories, BATF field offices, software companies that write code for the government, etc. Of course it would also be killing its own personnel, their families (most of whom would NOT be fighting on the opposite side), and millions of other noncombatants. Meanwhile, such atrocities would cause people to defect from the government in droves.

Sorry, but I maintain that the scenario is farfetched. Even the Russians didn't use nukes against Chechnya, and it certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons. In the case of Chechnya, it would be hard to rule a territory after it had been thoroughly contaminated with radioactive material -- which would, of course, also spread beyond Chechnya, possibly into other parts of Russia.

GuerrillaXXI
07-30-2012, 12:41 AM
Wouldn't that depend on what kind of lies they had been told? These guys are usually buried deep underground and have little to no contact with the outside world. They could be told that their family members, friends and comrades had already been killed by the "insurgents" and there was no choice but to destroy the "insurgency".If they were stupid enough to fall for such a lie, then the price they'd pay would be having to live for the rest of their (probably short) lives in a country that would be totally contaminated by radioactive fallout.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-30-2012, 01:26 AM
Sure -- if they're killing family members who are on the side of the enemy. That's a far cry from the federal government nuking its own cities, thereby destroying its own military bases, National Guard armories, BATF field offices, software companies that write code for the government, etc. Of course it would also be killing its own personnel, their families (most of whom would NOT be fighting on the opposite side), and millions of other noncombatants. Meanwhile, such atrocities would cause people to defect from the government in droves.

Sorry, but I maintain that the scenario is farfetched. Even the Russians didn't use nukes against Chechnya, and it certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons. In the case of Chechnya, it would be hard to rule a territory after it had been thoroughly contaminated with radioactive material -- which would, of course, also spread beyond Chechnya, possibly into other parts of Russia.

Who's the enemy? In 1861 it was those declaring their independence. Britain would have used nukes to save her territories in 1776 too. You think King George would have minded losing one or two cities as opposed to all of them?

S.Shorland
07-30-2012, 02:47 AM
Get hold of an assault rifle and bury it.Get hold of a handgun and bury it.When they come to confiscate your guns,tell them they were stolen.Or store a sacrificial gun/ammunition above the cache to defeat sniffer dogs/sniffer devices.

jmdrake
07-30-2012, 01:19 PM
I'm all in favor of the 2nd amendment, and I'm opposed to bans on assault rifles and the like. But can anyone really say that there should be no limits at all to the 2nd amendment? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

From the OP:

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

Ummmm.....a nuke is not a hand held weapon. Even a suitcase nuke (if those actually exist) would be activated (typically) when not in the operators hand.

Pericles
07-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Can someone provide an example of a weapon that was illegal for an individual citizen to own when the 2A was adopted?

I rest my case.