Firearms Talk banner

How a Supreme Court Justice Views the Constitution

1154 Views 6 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  JonM
I came across an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent visit to Princeton University to promote his new book, "Reading Law." During the visit, this is what he said about our Constitution...

As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a "living document" that changes with the times. "It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead." Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.

This is my opinion... I have always thought of Justice Scalia as a pompus, arogant scumbag. Every time I have seen him on the news just makes me want to puke. If this is really his thoughts, how do you think he would react to the Second Amendment? I will tell you how. I found an article about him speaking to Fox News regarding the Second Amendment...

Supreme Court Justice antonin Scalia says the Constitution's right to bear arms isn't absolute and could be changed in the future. Scalia, a card carrying conservative and stalwart of the Court's right-leaning majority, told Fox News Sunday "that the Second Amendment's language allowing citizens the right to own weapons doesn't mean they can own any weapon they want. There are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what society understood were reasonable limitations at the (future) time."

If you are still not convinced, read this article from the National Journal titled, "Guns May Be Regulated."

The future is looking to be a scary time for us who uphold our right... "to keep and bear arms." Granted, there's nothing we can do about who becomes a Supreme Court Justice, as they are appointed by the POTUS. If Obama has the chance to appoint one or two more Justices, he is close to having enough votes on the court to change the definition of the Second Amendment, and exactly what are rights will be regarding possession of firearms.
See less See more
Not open for further replies.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Meh, i break other laws; heck, i rolled a stop sign on the way to work today. I do wonder, if restrictions get ridiculous, how many people will have illegal suppressors and paperless SBR's and such.
Kemo, it's not what he says, it's how he votes. So far at least, he's on our side re:the 2nd Amendment. I'll take that all day long as opposed to the opinions of the Hon. Ms. Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Dang it, I was speeding on I-95 today. I wonder if pickup trucks will be banned next. Many more people are killed in an automobiles. Even the Brady bunch know that 26% of the people in the US support a firearms ban. I got the 26% number from the Brady blog.
Scalia is one of the best friends gun owners have ever had on the SCOTUS. Period!

For the absolutists that believe the 2A gives you the right to buy Stinger missiles, tanks and hand grenades, you won't like anyone on the SCOTUS.,

Every right has limitations. 1A doesn't protect you if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater. 4A protects you from a"unreasonable search and seizure, not ALL search and seizure.

There will always be limits on what the 2A protects. Thank God we've got folks like Scalia defining those limitations.

Read Scalia's opinion in the case of "Heller v D.C."
I believe that the intent of the founders in writing in the 2A was that the citizens should have the right to own the very same armaments as the standing military, up to, and including, Stingers, Mortars, Belt Fed's, hand grenades, Tanks, fighter jets, and even nukes and aircraft carriers if private funds permit, along with hiring the personnel to pilot and maintain such equipment.

I also believe that if such were true, we wouldn't even have weapons of mass destruction.
please keep political topics to the political controversy subforum. thanks :)
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Not open for further replies.