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


By bgamall4   Follow   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 11:27am   644 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
    306 threads
    1,804 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)
    512 threads
    3,087 comments

    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 (11)
    1,233 threads
    7,603 comments
    64 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
    306 threads
    1,804 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
    591 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
    306 threads
    1,804 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
    591 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 (11)
    1,233 threads
    7,603 comments
    64 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. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    408 threads
    11,625 comments

    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 (12)
    166 threads
    5,463 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
    27 threads
    6,131 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)
    63 threads
    2,550 comments
    Pleasanton, CA

    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)
    17 threads
    3,488 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)
    63 threads
    2,550 comments
    Pleasanton, CA

    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.

Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 72 milliseconds to create.