Patrick.net

Scalia Suggests 'Hand-Held Rocket Launchers' Are Protected Under Second Amendm

By bgamall4   Follow   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 11:27am   584 views   14 comments
In Las Vegas NV 89117   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/?mobile=nc #crazyoldman

Viewing Comments 1-14 of 14     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Blurtman Follow Befriend 5 threads 124 comments

   1   11:57am Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Why can't I have a tank?

2. lostand confused Follow Befriend (9) 166 threads 1,549 comments Premium

   2   12:08pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Well, if you want to own and set off a nuclear device, you can always head over to Chico, CA. Anyone who sets off a nuclear device within city limits will be fined an amount of $500 -per the law. Now Mississipi views adultery or fornification to be a higher crime than setting off a nuclear device. There you get to pay a fine of $500 and/or spend 6 months in jail for adultery .

3. bgamall4 Follow Befriend (14) 755 threads 2,590 comments 63 male Las Vegas, NV bgamall4's website Premium

   3   12:12pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   lostand confused says Well, if you want to own and set off a nuclear device, you can always head over to Chico, CA. Anyone who sets off a nuclear device within city limits will be fined an amount of $500 -per the law. Now Mississipi views adultery or fornification to be a higher crime than setting off a nuclear device. There you get to pay a fine of $500 and/or spend 6 months in jail for adultery . Lol, no wonder you are confused. :))

4. Blurtman Follow Befriend 5 threads 124 comments

   4   12:19pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   OK, I suppose I could not "bear" a tank. Flamethrower, then.

5. drew_eckhardt Follow Befriend (1) 2 threads 324 comments Sunnyvale, CA

   5   12:30pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Sure. The second amendment says "arms" which is an all-inclusive term. Through the war of 1812 that even included privately owned warships armed with canon (privateers played a role in that war).

6. Blurtman Follow Befriend 5 threads 124 comments

   6   12:35pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   OK. Tank, then. Lookout, Goldman Sachs.

7. drew_eckhardt Follow Befriend (1) 2 threads 324 comments Sunnyvale, CA

   7   12:40pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Blurtman says Why can't I have a tank? You can unless one or more of the following apply: 1) You're not wealthy (running M4A3 Sherman tanks start around $175,000). 2) You live in a non-free location where state law precludes it. 3) You are not allowed to own firearms because you're a felon, mentally defective, illegal drug user, or fall into another category of prohibited persons. 4) You're unwilling to pay the $200 transfer tax and comply with the registration requirements that go with the canon which is classified as a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. 5)All the local Chief Law Enforcement Officers who can approve the transfer are bed-wetting liberals and you won't create a NFA gun trust.

8. bgamall4 Follow Befriend (14) 755 threads 2,590 comments 63 male Las Vegas, NV bgamall4's website Premium

   8   12:56pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Wow, Scalia must think the founding fathers knew about flame throwers and hand held missiles! No, Judge, they only had single shooting muskets. Scalia is caught in the trap of his own twisted logic, that the constitution is static.

9. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 171 threads 4,214 comments Premium

   9   5:04pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I think it is perfectly reasonable for everyone to have a flame thrower in case they need to rock and roll to get into work, or a tyrannical government tries to increase taxes on trillionaires that they need to overthrow.

10. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 103 threads 3,764 comments

    10   5:13pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Blurtman says Why can't I have a tank? A semi automatic rifle is not a tank. You people need to leave gun owners alone.

11. thomaswong.1986 Follow Befriend 15 threads 2,851 comments

    11   5:49pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   drew_eckhardt says Sure. The second amendment says "arms" which is an all-inclusive term. Through the war of 1812 that even included privately owned warships armed with canon (privateers played a role in that war). yes.. there are some who own privately F-86 Sabers or even Mig-21s. Other ownership does include tanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1t4Q-yxq4

12. RentingForHalfTheCost Follow Befriend (8) 38 threads 2,018 comments Pleasanton, CA Premium

    12   6:15pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   FortWayne says Blurtman says Why can't I have a tank? A semi automatic rifle is not a tank. You people need to leave gun owners alone. I'd like a tank as well. Just so gun owners would leave me alone. ;)

13. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,100 comments

    13   6:43pm Sun 30 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   bgamall4 says Wow, Scalia must think the founding fathers knew about flame throwers and hand held missiles! No, Judge, they only had single shooting muskets. Scalia is caught in the trap of his own twisted logic, that the constitution is static. The God given right for American Citizens to arm themselves to the same level as the Government, or better than the government, is EXACTLY what a musket weapon and cannon were in "those days". There is no reason to limit the personal ownership of any type of tool, or weapon, by any legally qualified American Citizen. The laws against such ownership do not apply to law breakers. Having sane American Citizens armed with whatever tool or weapon they can muster is ok with me. We have laws against theft and murder, so no need to limit the good guys access to tools that help to stop such activity.

14. RentingForHalfTheCost Follow Befriend (8) 38 threads 2,018 comments Pleasanton, CA Premium

    14   5:04am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Bap33 says Having sane American Citizens There is no such thing. We are all a bit crazy.