« previous   misc   next »

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


By bgamall4   Follow   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 3:27am PST   769 views   14 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

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

Comments 1-14 of 14     Last »

Blurtman   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 3:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 1

Why can't I have a tank?

lostand confused   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:08am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

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 .

bgamall4   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

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. :))

Blurtman   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

OK, I suppose I could not "bear" a tank. Flamethrower, then.

drew_eckhardt   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

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).

Blurtman   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:35am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

OK. Tank, then. Lookout, Goldman Sachs.

drew_eckhardt   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 7

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.

bgamall4   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 4:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

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.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 9:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

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.

FortWayne   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 9:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

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.

thomaswong.1986   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 9:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

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

RentingForHalfTheCost   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 10:15am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

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. ;)

Bap33   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 10:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 13

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.

RentingForHalfTheCost   Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 9:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Bap33 says

Having sane American Citizens

There is no such thing. We are all a bit crazy.

bgamall4 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net