Members Lucky Posted July 30, 2012 Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 The Second Amendment is not unlimited, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said yesterday. In reining in what is considered by the NRA to be an unlimited right, Scalia says no: “We’ll see,” he answered. “I mean, obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear — so it doesn’t apply to cannons. “But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be … decided.” Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-bear-arms-unlimited-noted-future-limitations-decided-future-cases-article-1.1124408#ixzz226vZhNdT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members citylaw1 Posted July 30, 2012 Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 I noticed that as well yesterday. Scalia is more reasonable than many think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TampaYankee Posted July 30, 2012 Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 I noticed that as well yesterday. Scalia is more reasonable than many think. Bullshit!!!!!!! He's a right wing demogogue that practices strict constructionism when he it suits him and turns a blind eye also when it suits him. There is no Constitutional proclamation that corporations are to be extended 'personhood'. They have no inalienable rights, at least I cannot find them in the Constitution. Given that many of those men were businessmen one might think they would have considered the issue if they were inclined to. The individuals who own corporations do have rights as individuals and they can exercise those rights as individuals. (The same for unions.) However, to rein in these marks to the issue of guns, he said in the article that constitutional questions need to be considered in the times that our forefathers crafted it -- ruling in the context of what they knew or could practically envision in their time. I guarantee you that they did not envision fully automated handguns with 100 shot clips, Uzis and the like brought to movies theaters or even the Public Commons. Most of technology they did not envision. So most high tech weapons, they did not envision. His standard is a raft of horseshit. The founding fathers wrote more than specific concrete items rooted in the constitution. They also wrote principles into it, principles of rights and freedom from an obtrusive state that must be applied in time and circumstance of the present, not 250 years ago in a day-to-day world which has little to do with today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lucky Posted July 30, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2012 I took this as an effort by Scalia to be humorous. He went to the extremes with cannons and rocket launchers. Surely even the NRA would not support those. Surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I listened to part of his interview and if he thought that was humorous he needs a lesson from Joan Rivers on what's funny. I actually thought he was very serious and the amendment has no bounds in his views. I doubt that founding fathers had imagined a time when a nuclear bomb might be small enough to "carry in your hands". . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
