Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.
www.nationaljournal.com...




Yes because "locational limitation" regulations would have stopped the Aurora shootings...or any other for that matter...

Here is how this will go down:

They will regulate certain aspects of gun ownership such as the above mentioned "locational limitations" and in order to ENFORCE this regulation (which doesn't seem possible) they will have to implement TSA style security checks absolutely everywhere, just to make sure their "regulations" are being obeyed....

The regulations and legislation are the starting point, the ENFORCEMENT of those regulations/legislation is why our freedoms are being eroded left and right. They couldn't enforce all their fantasy filled regulations/legislation s after 9-11 without the patriot act...

this is how this works...

We haven't seen near enough roadside checks and public security officers randomly searching people walking down the street...there is room for this to get much worse and I see that this is where they want things to go.


it sucks




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Scalia is supreme justice member he needs to stay out of politics, but as usual the supreme court has failed us, now as the health care and the mandatory aka soon to be tax clause he is right is a pig will be a pig and as a pig pork will written all over it.




Perhaps the pig pork writing you mention is the reason he chose the word "pig" as opposed to any other critter. Looking at the size of the bill, I say we are already there.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Irony.

This could conceivably drive law-abiding people to purchase handguns outside the normal channel so that there is no chance of them being "regulated".



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


You don't have to remind me of that, I already have seen it for what it is, but now that it has to be rewritten for the tax clause is going to have more pork than a sausage contest on a eat your pork day festivities.

so far it has been word out there that more than a hundred different taxes will be added to the bill.

Now let see how this one is going to be sold to the people, as usual is after elections, not to scare the voters away you know.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
As a matter of fact this was the original meaning of the word 'regulate' in those days, i.e. to bring into conformity. Today's definition is to impose restriction. The context does not support the latter, even by today's definition.


Conformity naturally imposes restriction in behavior therefore it does fit the modern definition of the word. I don't see much of a difference in the meaning of the word. The better argument is that one section refers to the military and one refers to the average citizen.


It is not a good idea to remove ONE WORD and attach a meaning to it arbitrarily and say "this is the governments right". That is dishonest intellectually.


The word is there. If you don't want the problem remove the word. That's all I said, I'm not for banning guns and I'm not taking it there.
edit on 29-7-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
While there are some grand weaknesses to the Constitution, there is also one other grand weakness:

It does NOT prevent regulation and over regulation.

The liberals have found that out, and that's how they're going to get firearms out of the public is by tacking on so many regulations that they will be out of reach of the people.

These now sin taxes are just the start.

edit on 29-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)


aren't you conservatives getting tired of saying "liberals are going to take away your guns"?....after decades and decades of this NOT happening...you sound like the boy who cried wolf too many times...
and...where are all of you proud patriots, when the wealthy and corporate are the ones actually taking over this country...reducing your standard of living, shipping over 5 million jobs overseas, and having the "citizens united case" give corporations the same human rights that you have...i don't hear FOX NEWS or LIMBAUGH talking about that.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder how many guns are going to be reported lost or stolen in the coming years?

Sadly, my are now lost. Must have been lost due to a move.

*pity*


I know - it sucks, right? Mine were handed down to me from my grandfather, my uncle, and even a 16 gauge shotgun my dad bought for hunting when he was a teenager - all lost now. It's a shame that these family heirlooms that had so much sentimental value to me are "gone". I guess my house must have been broken into and they were the only things stolen.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl


Every time they hint at gun control gun sales jump nation wide... Clearly the question needs to be is it the will of the people in the first place.

besides they must have a different definition of what infringed means..

And the right to militia duties per state was clearly separate from the individuals right to Bare arms, so the regulate part is for the Militia, not the Arms part.


It is "BEAR" as in Carry not "Bare".....The phrase "well regulated" referred to timed like a Regulator clock in those days NOT to government regulations or rules and restrictions, per se. A "well regulated militia being necessary to the freedom of the state" is a phrase that modifies the central theme of the sentence but does not detract from it; that being that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now the advocates of Gun Control like Michael Moore will argue that times change and we even had slavery back in those days and we got rid of it didnt we. Yes and you probably had to be "free, white and 21" to be a member of most militias (fwiw, a free slave died at the Boston Massacre). BUT I would ask Mr. Moore (FHA*), Mr. Holder (DOJ) and Mr. Obama (POTUS) would they deny those same slaves the right to own any weapons available to them in Africa to protect them and their families from being raided, captured and enslaved and shipped off like common cargo to the new world to be sold as slaves? Tell us what you think Liberals.....

*FHA; Fat Horse's Arse



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Do you not know liberals are the cause of every American problem and if they could just be rid of you everything would be sunshine and rainbows?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by michaelbrux
 



Yes that is "arms" plural. As far as subs and rockets.......the people are currently outmatched. Assult rifles are near primitive anyway when one considers the basic battlfield weapons an out of control police state could bring to bear.....which is what the 2nd is all about.

A few years ago the pres of the RNC said the second was about hunting and the like......what an idot and running the RNC at that.



the people are never outmatched...the people control the Pentagon, SecDef is now, always has been and always will be run by a civilian, AKA, the People.

this discussion about 'gun' control, especially as it is related to a UN treaty...naturally leads to and can be interpreted as the belief that the UN should be in control of the American Military and all the militaries of the world for that matter. Gun control is inherently, but hidden, discussion concerning American Military surrender to a foreign power.

I don't know who are the people that are doing this or who it is they think they are playing with...but the American military power will never put a leash on itself...if they think they have what it takes, they will have to do that themselves.

this entire conversation illustrates that a woman can ask another woman if its okay if she has sex with her husband and the wife will allow it. its happening right in front of all your faces and no one will point this out.

until now that is.
edit on 29-7-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well it goes both way regardless of party preferences they both sold to corporate greed, On that I agree with you America is run under a corporate dictatorship and Obama is nothing but a corporate whore that his dreams of socialism went down the drain when the pimps offered him better rewards if he went along with their agenda.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


"regulated" was in reference to a militia, not a gun. And it means to order and organize.. "Regulars" you see. The second amendment likely referred to one of two things: Either all citizens should be allowed to keep arms. Or states were supposed to be permitted to have standing armies. Or both.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


the amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms...i.e. the Military Power is given to the People, exclusively.

and the Government is granted the authority to raise an Army from among the People and conduct war against foreign enemies.

any attempt to by the Government to overestimate the idea of regulation conclusively illustrates that members of the Government are being influence by foreign elements to disarm the American people; and destroy American military power...fortunately for us all not enough members of the Government are interested in such a thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
What we need is a better way to "Regulate" The Regulators (inclusive of all in Government).
It is Sunday; "can I get an Amen?"



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I'm not a conservative.

And liberals do want to take away the firearms.

In California it's illegal to have a firearm in city limits any more, and there's the Brady Campaign with such luminaries as MacGuyver heading up the campaign to take your firearms away.

en.wikipedia.org...

So don't give me your tired old bs that liberals don't.

They do.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


they aren't regulators, some of them must be agents acting on behalf of a foreign state or church.

to be fair, i assume they may need to get more sleep or take a vacation; no well rested person would destroy their own lives in such an obvious way.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 

The State Dept has had other plans apparently (to put the US Military under the leash of foreign control via the UN). See my thread on The US Govt as the arm of the NWO: Plans for Disarmament (except for internal control and a UN Peace Force).



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone


In California it's illegal to have a firearm in city limits any more, and there's the Brady Campaign with such luminaries as MacGuyver heading up the campaign to take your firearms away.




So there's no gun crime in California? I mean, that's "why" they regulated firearms, right?

Because of gun crime?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


i went to that thread today. i never realized gun control had become an obsession with so many people.

so i've decided to go ahead and talk about this today.

its not about taking away our weapons; its about giving over control of them to foreign elements and interests that are not in the best interests of Americans. if you give some people your weapon, they will use it against you.

this conversation 'gun control' or infringement upon Americans' right to keep and bear arms in any of its forms is an act of political violence so extreme that anyone that speaks in support of it should be placed under permanent observation and investigation.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I don't understand...If I or anyone else wants to own an assault rifle I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO. so what if they didn't have these types of weapons when the Constitution was funded. It was funded on the right to bear arms, not which arms, but any arms. This isn't a matter of limiting access to weapons that could harm people, I hate to say it, but if someones going to harm people they will find other methods even without access to guns....





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join