Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 11:48 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh
Disagree with you there,locutus.

The Constitution wasn't written so that only people with enormous IQ's and lifelong employment as a lawyer can understand it.

I think elitist monkeying around with the simple,direct meaning of "shall not be infringed" in order to avoid the necessary repeal of all "gun control" in order to be in full compliance with the 2A is bull****.

And I think the only reason he did it was because he wanted to avoid the backlash of having to release and pardon tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans wrongfully "convicted" of violating "gun control" "laws",along with the political backlash of denouncing a large part of an entire parties platform as truly illegitimate.

So he concocted a whole host of debatable reasons for not invalidating the entirety of "gun control" and restoring the 2A to its rightful authority as a restriction on the whole of government infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And because of this,we now face justification of "gun control" not built on the shaky foundation of usurpations of power from the Commerce Clause,but from the second amendment itself supposedly allowing "reasonable regulations"- which in the past have been laws that disarm slaves and freed blacks,without any real federal laws being made -no longstanding federal precedent- until the 1930's.

Its an example of pure revisionist history and judicial activism in support of a concept that has its roots in the darkest history of this nation on the one hand and no "long stranding precedent" beyond the progressive socialist era on the other.

The only limitation to MY rights are the rights of others- not unjust and illegitimate "laws" made by the federal (or any state) government outside the boundaries of the highest law of the land.

Without question,the entire court -and not just one political wing- is enamored of itself and the power it can wield,as well as of its place within a powerful federal government that it refuses to limit lawfully.

They enjoy their power,and concoct outright Orwellian excuses for the support and growth of such power.

All that being said-

What I find really interesting is how a man so smart and well schooled in this issue as Scalia can fathom to justify the "reasonable regulations" of the first amendment that pretty much encompass your right to speak freely but don't allow you to violate other peoples rights by slander,libeling,or threating them,as being the same as 20,000 federal laws complete with a special federal police agency to enforce them which are used to "reasonably regulate" the Second Amendment object- arms.

How would America look if the first amendment were as regulated and policed as the Second Amendment is?

Common sense seems to elude highly intellectual big government elitists like Scalia.....
Wish I had your free time...

What he said!
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:11 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TimL2952's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lockport,New York
Posts: 1,329
Liked 188 Times on 131 Posts
Likes Given: 304

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
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.
"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

where?
__________________
TimL2952 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:13 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigByrd47119 View Post
Wish I had your free time...

What he said!
Took 5 minutes lol.

Then I went and sprayed the yard for weeds,before the wife beat me with the garden hose!
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:48 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

I have to disagree with all of this face value evaluation of his words. I do not believe for one second that he's saying our firearms are at risk. It's just not in his nature...

Scalia knows that yesterday's musket is todays M4. What he's talking about is brandishing. Using a weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation or to incite chaos...or a weapon that is designed with the specific intent of inciting chaos...but I also believe he knows that no weapon exists...but he's setting up the gauntlet that will keep them occupied...basically saying "If you want to ban that gun, prove something that cannot be proven"



In other words You have freedom of speech, but you cannot scream "Fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane...but the freedom haters will have to prove that you screamed it in the first place...and since no evidence exists to prove you said a peep, then they lose.

This is the same idea behind Scalias words...he's playing games with the gun-hating crowds, I guarantee it.

__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois

Last edited by PrimePorkchop; 07-30-2012 at 12:54 AM.
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:58 AM   #15
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,749
Liked 5802 Times on 3029 Posts
Likes Given: 397

Default

dont forget that those self same judges who say there is a limit on the right to bear arms also claimed black people were animals and property...

just because a judge 100years ago got it wrong doesnt mean 100years of wrong means it is right.

the constitution is plain to any who look at it. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. there isnt any grey area

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 01:01 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
I have to disagree with all of this face value evaluation of his words. I do not believe for one second that he's saying our firearms are at risk. It's just not in his nature...

Scalia knows that yesterday's musket is todays M4. What he's talking about is brandishing. Using a weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation or to incite chaos...or a weapon that is designed with the specific intent of inciting chaos...but I also believe he knows that no weapon exists...but he's setting up the gauntlet that will keep them occupied...basically saying "If you want to ban that gun, prove something that cannot be proven"



In other words You have freedom of speech, but you cannot scream "Fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane...but the freedom haters will have to prove that you screamed it in the first place...and since no evidence exists to prove you said a peep, then they lose.

This is the same idea behind Scalias words...he's playing games with the gun-hating crowds, I guarantee it.

Your confusing regulation with cause and effect natural law here.

If I were to scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire,I'd be guilty of violating the rights of other people.

But no one has (yet,at least) argued that in this nation we should hobble people's vocal cords or "use technology" to prevent them from doing things like yelling fire in a crowded theater.


And as much as people want to desperately believe that Heller was totally pro-2A,don't hold your breath.

While it might look like Scalia is talking about "brandishing" "scary weapons" as an explanation of what he means by "reasonable regulation" in this particular instance,what I'd like you to ask yourself is if he's really interested in getting the 2A back to the point of being acknowledged as an individual right thats only subject to limitations when you abuse that right by violating the rights of others,then why did he allow decades of "gun control" that encompasses far more then the simple "fire in a crowded theater" example of reasonable law to stay in place?

He had the chance to totally undo decades of illegitimate and unlawful federal "gun control" in Heller.He failed.

My only conclusion is that Scalia considers "gun control" to be "reasonable".

And don't think for a second that the gun grabbers haven't come to the same conclusion.

In fact,as I've written elsewhere,instead of having to concoct some half-baked bull**** about how the commerce clause allows them to violate the 2A,now the hoplophobes can just say that Heller,as per Scalias majority opinion,says that the Second Amendment itself gives them the power to "reasonably regulate" arms.

You think Scalia is playing the gun grabbers.

I think the big government types are playing us all.

And again,I ask what this nation would look like if we had 20,000 laws on the books as well as a special federal police agency to "reasonably regulate" the First Amendment?

Would the Supreme Court allow that as a condition to the excersize of free speech,and would free speech still even exist as a truly inalienable right under such circumstances?

How is something a right when you have to have government permission to do it?

Thats called a government administered privilege,which has been the status quo of the Second Amendment since 1968 in this nation,and still is despite Heller.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 07-30-2012 at 01:13 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 01:07 AM   #17
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,749
Liked 5802 Times on 3029 Posts
Likes Given: 397

Default

one other thing. any supreme court judge that decides a case taking precedent into consideration should be immediately removed with rapid haste from the bench. the only text a supreme court judge should have access to in making a decision is the united states constitution. no other court decisions no founding father notes no previous cases. just the constitution.

its not rocket science

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 01:11 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

Quote:
Again,I ask what this nation would look like if we had 20,000 laws on the books as well as a special federal police agency to "reasonably regulate" the First Amendment?
Well, this is a very interesting concept that I had not thought of before...don't get me wrong, I don't feel like gun control works at all...in case thats what you thought?

I still don't feel that Scalia is mirroring these liberal talking points on gun control (did you see that hideous **** with Michael Moore the other day? Talking about muskets...what drivel) ... what I took from his comments is that he's saying "you'll have to prove something to me that cannot be proven"

But my "Fire shout" in the theater was not meant to directly relate to the concept of gun control...I know what you're saying, but it's really not how i'm trying to word it.

hard to get words out sometimes, basically what I mean is he's saying "Well, maybe there are some weapons that fall into that classification, but you guys haven't shown those to me yet"

I don't know, maybe im wrong... I was certainly wrong about SCOTUS' decision on Obamacare...
__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois

Last edited by PrimePorkchop; 07-30-2012 at 01:13 AM.
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 01:18 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
Well, this is a very interesting concept that I had not thought of before...don't get me wrong, I don't feel like gun control works at all...in case thats what you thought?

I still don't feel that Scalia is mirroring these liberal talking points on gun control (did you see that hideous **** with Michael Moore the other day? Talking about muskets...what drivel) ... what I took from his comments is that he's saying "you'll have to prove something to me that cannot be proven"

But my "Fire shout" in the theater was not meant to directly relate to the concept of gun control...I know what you're saying, but it's really not how i'm trying to word it.

hard to get words out sometimes, basically what I mean is he's saying "Well, maybe there are some weapons that fall into that classification, but you guys haven't shown those to me yet"

I don't know, maybe im wrong... I was certainly wrong about SCOTUS' decision on Obamacare...
No,I didn't think you were pro gun control at all.

We live in Orwellian times my friend- the government is very busy destroying liberty on all fronts,and is also busy keeping us thinking the state of tyranny were growing accustomed to is "freedom".

The only reason why "gun control" appeals to the government is because it gives them control.

If "gun control" meant levying regulations that restricted government use of force,you'd see them jumping off that shyit so fast it'd look like rats escaping a sinking ship......

And Fat Bastard Mikey Moore has lard for brains and should go live in New York where Bloomieballs can make him healthy by using government to regulate what he can eat.

Funny,how the nanny staters love laws that restrict the phuck out of everyone but THEM..........
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
PrimePorkchop Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 02:58 AM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,619
Liked 5954 Times on 3371 Posts
Likes Given: 5524

Default

I would invite anyone who thinks Justice Scalia is one of the Washington elite to google SCOTUS decisions and read 10-15 of his opinions. (Hint: Keep a copy of Black's law dictionary beside you. This guy is a legal Einstein)

Honestly, I wish we had 8 more like him on the court.

And Jon, stare decisis, or precedent has been a part of out legal system since English common law, 300 years before our constitution was even written.

Without it, allowing every court to re-interpret the constitution without regard to precedent would destroy the entire constitution as we know it.

You can't build anything without a foundation under it.

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
PrimePorkchop Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
All guns are loaded guns! downsouth Training & Safety 24 06-03-2012 01:55 AM
Kagan goes hunting wth Scalia Mongo Legal and Activism 3 05-10-2012 02:30 PM
THIS is the reason normal people are scared of guns and people with guns DodgerBlue Legal and Activism 51 03-28-2012 02:58 AM
40,000 lbs of guns melted down by LAPD - LAPD Implies Owning Guns Is Illegal crowbar Legal and Activism 17 02-25-2010 01:28 AM
Video: Guns, Guns, Guns sculker The Club House 15 02-22-2010 12:53 AM