Government

Justice Scalia: ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

Antonin Scalia

AP

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.

“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,“ Scalia said on ”Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.

“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a ”frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

The 76-year-old justice declined to speculate on what that could mean specifically for certain high-powered weapons.

“We’ll see,” he said. “Obviously the amend does not apply to arms that cannot be 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 — it’ll have to be decided.”

As a constitutional originalist, Scalia said those determinations will have to be made “very carefully” looking within the context of 18th-century history.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will probably be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”

Watch below:

 

(h/t Drudge Report)

This post has been updated since it was first published.

Comments (369)

1 2 3 ... 8
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:30pm

    Scalia,strict constructionist? If he believes there‘s limits to gun ownership then our republic is finished because he’s the alleged ‘conservative’. The other four communists would start confiscating weapons immediately if they had their way.

    And I always thought the second amendment would protect us from government,seems it’s the other way around and the government will use it,the second amendment ,to protect itself from us.

    That’s the first step,round up all the guns and tyranny will reign,sounds like a plan eh Barry?

    It’s gonna be a real bitch rounding them up.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • jcizarter
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:36pm

      Where has he been for the last 3.5 yrs? My goodness, Barach wants to regulate raw milk and signs on the backs of Amish buggies. Judge Scalia, stop napping and smell the gun take over that is about to happen.

      Report Post » jcizarter  
    • Minarchian
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:47pm

      Over 56,000,000 people were slaughtered by their own governments through gun control.

      Watch this little vid:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln56Zp22res

      Report Post »  
    • mercenary4freedom
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:10pm

      Another sellout, our RED DAWN from within is coming

      Report Post » mercenary4freedom  
    • cykonas
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:43pm

      @JCIZARTER

      It‘s not the judge who’s napping. It’s the electorate. Scalia was appointed by Reagan. The R’s poster boy of conservatism!

      When you R’s get a clue of what YOUR PARTY is doing to you, and move to the Libertarian/Constitution/Independent side we may have a chance to save that Republic. Right now you‘re too busy blaming the D’s for all your problems. You’re not even aware of what your own team is doing to kill liberty and our Republic. So continue to follow the lame leadership that your party is so enamored with, we’re sunk! Your move, partner.

      Report Post » cykonas  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 3:35pm

      Cyconas, Well said. I notice that most Republicans that post on here are bigoted to the Democrat Party, when they should be bigoted toward progressives in both parties. There are, believe it or not, Democrats that do believe in the Constitution and are patriots. Granted that the Democrats have been taken over by mostly progressives, but the same is happening with the Republicans also, making us a one party system. If more would wake up to this fact, we could save our Republic sooner.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 3:43pm

      1.) Did the founders say people were able to own a crew served weapon such as a muzzle loading weapon?

      2.) What about anti-vehicle weapons such as a bazooka, RPG, TOW or man portable SAM?

      3.) If there was such a thing as FRIGHTING, then what the Black Panthers did in Philly was at least a misdemeanor, but in every honest person’s eyes it was a felony since it was outside a polling place on election day.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 4:40pm

      WalkAbout, What is the point of your post? Are you saying that the 2nd amendment should be limited to weapons for hunting? I really do not see the problem with Americans owning a bazooka if they so choose, as long as they are responsible with it. By that I mean that it is put away unless it is needed for war, war against tyranny. It should be punishable to use any weaponry for illegal activities, but it should not be illegal to own any weapon if you want it, can afford it and it is used wisely. And please do not come back with, should Americans be able to own nuclear weapons, as that would be a ridiculous comparison and show ignorance on the part of the person asking. I say that as it was used with me once before. Tanks? Fair game.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • wakewiseone
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 4:56pm

      rounding them up?? sounds like all out war to me.

      Report Post »  
    • RJL
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 5:07pm

      Roberts now Scalia. Can’t wait to see how the severely conservative Romney sells us out. If he hasn’t already.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 5:31pm

      I love the way I was the first post on this page all day, then suddenly I am moved to the second page. The Blaze is the worst place to come with truth. They are not about truth, they are about pushing agendas.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • servant100
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 5:58pm

      Like The Harbinger shows…9/11 was the first installment of God’s hand of protection being lifted off our nation. As this covering is lifted…the daemonic is increasingly manifested…outright insanity becomes the norm…good becomes evil and evil is viewed as good.. For all you California and Atlantic Coasties…this translates into everyone does what is right in their own eyes…nothing is fixed all “morality” is now relative…situational. We as a nation now accept no one true God…no single “truth” and view all truth as being relative to the situation. Under this…NOTHING is fixed.. therefore…Scalia spouts gun control drivel….and sounds more like the moron Roberts…because there is no stable code of morality….the Constitution and the moral base that undergirds that contract becomes a transforming doument that “evolves” as society reaches higher levels of moral elightenment.

      Again..for you Californians and Atlantic Coasters…law is no longer protective…it becomes increasingly anarchistic…you…find yourself increasingly looking to the charismatic leader who will win the battle for political primacy. You attach yourself to that person as your patron…and personal loyalty trumps law…. you thus become a barbarian…like the Romans as the republic fell..you look for the emperor…you become a barbarian…like Scalia…

      Report Post »  
    • MCDAVE
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 6:37pm

      @west coast Here is a site with the whole truth, http://american-trojan-horse.blogspot.com/ Its a long list of the treason and betrayals we have received from our government,

      Report Post »  
    • Bum thrower
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:22pm

      100 round mags are expensive; and have U seen what it costs to feed them?!?!
      .
      If U shoot 3-gun; a 100 round mag will save you time; (it’s ALL about time); I wanna get a Federal grant and use the loot to ‘weapon up’; just like the nut case in CO.

      Mags are irrelevant. CA limits capacity to 10 rounds; IDPA max mag capacityis 10 rounds regardless of where the match is held….10+1: works for me!!! on the street; different story!!

      Guns don’t kill people; PEOIPLE kill people!!

      Report Post »  
    • Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:46pm

      There will be no gun takeover. My guns are worth dying for. They are the private property bought and paid for by my sweat and blood. It’s time for a milion men packing to walk on Washington, take over the WH and the Capital building and refuse to leave until it is agreed many in Congress, Senate, House, and Executive branch are tried for treason. 1 million men with guns will never be stopped. The guns are not for a fight but to defend against anyone being falsely arrested. Both England and Australian citizens regret giving up their guns and wish they had them back. NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS. Let‘s stand together neighbor for neighbor protecting each other’s self and private property. It’s time for a revolution. The Constitution provitdes all the right we need to resolve the treason.

      Report Post » Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington  
    • Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:49pm

      Some would call him a chief justice. Many freemen would say this traitor is treasonous. It’s time to create real Constitutional authority and address the traitors.

      Report Post » Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 9:02pm

      Here is the problem with gun nuts, they are just plan nuts. The first amendment right to freedom of religion is not abolute, you do not have the right to perform animal, let alone human sacrifice regardless what your religion demands. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. No right is absolute, the rights are limited by commonsense. Commonsense dictates that there must be reasonable limits on the weapons civilians can own. AR-15 ans other military grade weapona have no place in society.

      Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 9:33pm

      @ENCINOM

      Here’s the thing..it’s none of your business if I own an AR-15 or pretty much anything else. My rights stop where your rights begin, so it’s fine if I own an AR-15, a pistol, an AK because I know I won’t use them to harm others. Now, I do agree it’s reasonable to draw lines. Where do we draw them? Tanks, nukes (not that me, you, or any other person could afford them anyways). Those type of weapons (AR-15’s, AK’s, and even shotguns) aren’t meant to be carried around, but for home defense and mainly to protect yourself against a tyrannical government.

      Criminals can get their hands on AR-15’s, AK’s, and pretty much any other type of gun. So, it makes no sense to tell the good people they can’t have them.

      The FDA controls what you can put in your body
      The USDA controls what you can grow
      The EPA controls what you can do with your property
      The DHHS will control what medical options you have

      Do you really want more Government control? The way things are headed you’re gonna need one of those AR-15′s.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:15pm

      It is only because of the lax, NRA sponsored gun laws that criminals can get a hand on military styled weapons. No civilian needs military weapons, you have no right to have a private arsonal.

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:15pm

      encinom
      As one of my favorite T-shirts reads, “You have a right to your dumb@$$ opinion.” As with most progressives, you are insinuating all civilians are potentially stupid/dangerous/mentally ill. Therefore, they are not to be trusted and must be FEARED. Yours is the voice that clamors for govt. “to do something” and believes that govt. has your best interests in mind. Believe it or not, govt. is not now, has never been and never will be your friend. It is a tool and at this point in our existence, it is a tool being used to, foremost, protect and perpetuate itself.
      You know what really burns me? I’ve been accused (more than once) of being a doppleganger under which you post. To all those who ever mistake me for encinom, respectfully, eat my shorts.

      Report Post »  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:23pm

      @PROGRESSIVESLAYER

      Don’t be so obtuse. There already are gun restrictions. Can I own a Flak 88? No. Can I own an RPG? No. What Scalia is saying is that there should be MORE considered unnecessary – 100 round magazine semi automatic should be one of them.

      If you think guns are for hunting you don’t need 100 rounds without reloading
      If you think guns are for home defense you don’t need 100 rounds without reloading
      If you think guns are for tyrannical defense you wont live long enough to run through all 100 – the war against government oppression is won with number of militia, not the number of bullets in your gun.
      If you think guns are collector items you don’t need 100 rounds without reloading.

      Someone tell me WHY you would need that much continuous firepower? And why that limit is somehow more acceptable than owning, lets say, a Tank.

      Literally. I am a gun owner, I love and practice my right to arm myself, but I’m also a reasonable human being and member of a civilized western world.

      Tell me how Jesus justified gun use.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:27pm

      @THE GOOCH
      “As with most progressives, you are insinuating all civilians are potentially stupid/dangerous/mentally ill. Therefore, they are not to be trusted and must be FEARED.”

      Strawman alert! Some civilians are dangerous hence why there should be RESTRICTIONS on who can and cannot operate a firearm.

      “You want to drive a car? Pass the Drivers Test.”

      “You want to own a gun? …Here ya go.”

      There needs to be a test to prove the person obtaining the weapon is trained in using it and not some crazy 60 year old Blaze Banger who decides he needs to strap up because an African American family just moved in next door and the kids are playing music too loud.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:31pm

      @BLACK9897

      All of those organizations you named were created to meet a need. The FDA doesn’t dictate what you can and cannot eat, it dictates what big business can and cannot sell you as food. I don’t want to buy a “banana” only to discover its a slab lead painted yellow.

      Believe it or not, the government – which is controlled by people WE APPOINT – has our interest in mind far more than some big corporation appointed by money with the sole purpose of turning a profit.

      You want to remove Government restrictions? That’s akin to Anarchy. For all the “Socialism is evil” discussion you Beck Nut Gobblers have, I’m kind of surprised no one has commented on how deregulation is a an Anarchistic ideology.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • black9897
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:37pm

      I don’t think you understand what a criminal is. They DON’T obey laws, so law or no law they will do it anyways. So don’t try and blame this on the law. Other than your opinion what facts do you rely on to tell me I have no right to own those weapons? You don’t have to worry about the guns, just the people that want to harm others using them (which is not the vast majority of people). Then again, I could take a car and plow down a lot of people. You want to have laws banning cars? Not everything can be prevented. I guess you think that by banning weapons such as those it will prevent deaths and prevent bad guys from getting them? It doesn’t. Never has, never will.

      Don’t like guns (or some guns) don’t own them; don’t like pot, then don’t smoke it; as long as you are not violating anyways rights or causing damage (or trying to/acting in a way that will cause damage) then legally you should be allowed to do it. In fact, that’s all the government was meant to do was to secure our God-given rights.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • black9897
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:52pm

      The thing is we don’t need them to do that. Having a True free market can do just that, and do it better. I’m not suggesting we have no regulations. I would like to see a privately run world. Basically a voluntary system called the “free market.”

      You think it’s controlled by the people? That’s funny, because the government has to steal money from us under threat and duress..it’s called taxation. So the groups that were created for a “need” are funded by stealing our money in order to serve our needs…???? Huh?? At least those big corporations interact with us on a VOLUNTARY basis, unlike government which operates on a violent basis. They (the Government) force us to pay for services, forcing people to possibly serve in the military and forcing people to serve on the jury. You still think this is the land of the free? You may say “omg, you’re talking anarchy!” Call it what you want, but I just want a society where people can offer their services on a voluntary basis.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:54pm

      VoteBushIn12
      And the man of the hour (Holmes) is being revealed to have been KNOWN to be that dangerous man who should have not had access to firearms. Here’s the problem with the mentally ill: Often they can hold it together long enough to accomplish a task. And you can’t normally look at someone and assume he or she is mentally it (unless you still believe phrenology has merit).
      There is a duty to warn (if and when a patient makes threat… kinda negates that whole “in confidence” expectation). Thanks for assuming I’m a fool who only argues with emotion or neat tricks. The problem with “duty to warn” is the professional has to bother to act. Holmes wasn’t posting his plan on Facebook or sharing it with Match.com prospects… but he was seeing a psychiatrist and keeping a journal.
      I do agree there comes a time when certain citizens should not be armed. But the demand is for a “perfect” system. In short, impossible. The problem will always be human error (or, more correctly, sloth). Couple fear and ideology and you have a recipe for one more excuse to trample on the rights of all. That’s not a logic argument, that’s an observable fact.
      I can use fear to make you quit drinking coffee… or to convince you to start drinking coffee. I can use fear to make you cower in a corner and wait for the authorities. I don’t wanna be ruled by fear. Do you? And a little honesty and knowledge is always appreciated.

      Report Post »  
    • caveman74
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 11:16pm

      OH MAN I wish I hadnt accidentally dropped all my guns in the river to be washed away and never seen again when I tripped on that hiking trip a few months ago. When they tell us to turn in all our guns I will have none to give them……..such a shame….to bad

      Report Post »  
    • Fourthhorseman
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 11:36pm

      “Commonsense dictates that there must be reasonable limits on the weapons civilians can own. AR-15 ans other military grade weapona have no place in society.”

      Common sense dictates if you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself from the tyranny of your government and that government has weapons, you should be able to have the same kind. We don’t even come close to having what they have, they have nukes! Your argument falls apart there! Does any government NEED nukes—no! Nukes have “no place in society”, but they have them. Yet, you don‘t want us to have AR’s? Communist troll!

      Report Post » Fourthhorseman  
    • PaxInVeritate
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:53am

      SERVANT100… *sigh*… and yet again. Because of apostasy in the world, moral relativism is prevalent throughout the world, not just in our nation. “Demonic” manifestations are increasing throughout the world due to the “end times” spoken of in Daniel, Revelation and the Book of Enoch. Why you think that this should be geologically confined and explained to “California and Atlantic Coasters” is beyond me. That being said, “God’s hand of protection” is there for anyone who ask for it, regardless of one’s location, nation or faith.
      The Courts Progressive interpretation of the Constitution began in the early 1900′s.

      I, as a Californian, have never seen laws as “protective”, but progressively restrictive to our personal and social freedoms, and as such, I’m not sure where one can cite “anarchy” as an effect.
      The only “charismatic” leader I look for is Jesus Christ, not some politician that is the lesser of two evils.

      How did you know that I have a beard? Fear the beard!

      Report Post » PaxInVeritate  
    • AZindependent
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:55am

      “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”
      ~ John Locke

      Independent militias made up of adult citizens (not the National Guard) were to have access to the same arms as the government controlled military. This insured that the people could rebel if necessary against a tyrannical government. Citizens should be able to band together with others and have the means to violently (if necessary) overthrow their government. That is what the second amendment is for, self defense against a tyrannical government. To that end ALL types of arms should be available to the citizenry.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:36am

      Here is a site tha all should go to to see what we are becoming, an Oligarchy. http://americanbuilt.us/governments/democracy.shtml

      We have already been turned into a Democracy, with everything that is happening, Oligarchy is not too far around the turn.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • Mil-Dot
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:44am

      Looks like the Obama goooooooooons are out in full force. Looks like the got to Scalia as well.

      Report Post »  
    • sixtysix
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:32am

      If Scalia and O’Relily were around when the repeating rifle was manufactured, no doubt they would have advocated outlawing them.

      Report Post »  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:41am

      @BLACK9897

      A “true” free market will never do that – history is evidence. The whole reason we needed those regulations is because the system was being abused! The 40 hour work week, minimum wage, equal pay for women, etc, all of these things needed to be expressed in law because corporations were becoming big enough to artificially inflate/deflate the market in order to meet an ends. Just look at the Libor Scandal from literally two weeks ago. The proof is in the pudding. “Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it” and you are walking proof.

      Back to guns.

      You use cars as an example – perfect, so do I! When I want to drive a car I need to pass a test. Currently, you don’t need to prove proficiency to own and operate a firearm. You literally just need to be breathing and have some money and you are granted access to one of the most devastating advancements in military technology of the common era – the repeating rifle.

      You’re right. I could kill a LOT of people with my car if I didn’t know what I was doing, and sometimes people do just that. That’s why there are national laws in place prohibiting me using that car whilst impaired, in places not designated from driving (sidewalks, restaurants, movie theaters, etc) or under an age limit.

      Look at Air Planes even. It takes thousands of hours of training to be allowed to fly. Guns… 0

      I’m not suggesting adding restrictions will solve all problems, but it’s a necessary step.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:44am

      It has always been my position that those who celebrated the recent “alleged” victories of the 2′nd Amendment – were being duped.

      If I’m not mistaken, Scalia cited the very case I said was actually a DEFEAT of your 2′nd Amendment freedoms. The final product of progressive brainwashing and acceptance of the “Incorporation Doctrine” of the 14th Amendment.

      How could this be a defeat? The Federal Government was prohibited from “infringing” the rights of the people to bear arms – in any capacity. This right was left to the States, or The People. When we were all convinced the US Constitution soley guarded that right – it put all the marbles in the Federal government’s sack – now they are poising themselves to simply take the whole sack of marbles away. And, they’ve cleverly gotten you to agree to their “Supremecy” to do so.

      The “Heller” case was the Dredd Scott decision of gun ownership. I‘m astounded most people don’t realize this? But then, most here depend solely on Glenn and David to tell you what history is.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • apbt55
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:06am

      Your using Bush as an avatar shows how you think, you are a progressive. And an idiot. You may need to pass a test to take a car on public roads for use, but you only need the money to purchase one. you can then have it towed home if you want. So according to your logic if I pass my gun test I can carry and fire it at will in public areas as long as I am safe about it, and like cars, does it then become a traffic issue if I accidentally hit someone. Moron, go back to your globalist hole. The second amendment was to ensure civilians could be as well armed as the government military trying to oppress them.

      Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:41am

      wow. where the heck did scallia’s opinion come from? hard to believe he made such a statement. i always thought he was a conservative and strict constitutionalist. there must be something real bad in the water in dc.

      Report Post »  
    • KeystoneState
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:58am

      We can all banter about the “who, what, when, where, why, and how’s” of gun control, but it dosent really matter because the 2nd amendment is clear as a bell and like it or not, its the law, and those who continue to try to chip away at it, and the other amendments are asking for trouble, which is happening now and makes sense because this is exactly why the amendments were put there in the first place!

      Report Post » KeystoneState  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:00am

      You can regulate any gun you want and you can TRY to take some of them away, OR, you can TRY to take all of them away – YOU CAN TRY, BUT YOU WILL FAIL.

      …OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS……

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:04am

      @cykonas:
      I am Independent (was a Republican) and YOU ARE SO CORRECT, IT IS ALMOST UNIMAGINABLE TO BELIEVE, but the Republicans are moderate Dems in sheep’s clothing. Shame.

      But, YOU REALLY ARE CORRECT. Republican Americans clearly have no mind of their own. They follow their party all the way over the cliff and when they realize, after the fact, that they’ve been duped (example, JOHN MCCAIN NOMINEE), they will have already LOST.

      I am NOW beginning to look at Libertarian candidates, so you have a new member of the Libertarian party. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS SOLD OUT TO THE DEMOCRATS.

      WAKE UP AMERICA!

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • black9897
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:04am

      That is not true. I never said we don’t need regulations. Do you believe a service or product should be offered on a violent basis? That’s the only question that matters. I don’t really have problem with what is being offered, I have a problem with HOW it’s being offered. If someone wants my money they can EARN it. If I like a service or product I will VOLUNTARILY give my money to them. If they are bad/evil or don’t offer good services/products then I simply withdraw my support/money. A true free market society (yes with regulations) has never been tried.

      To get a concealed hand gun permit you have to take a test. To open carry in most states you have to be 21, and not a felon. Most law abiding people who want to protect themselves learn how to use their gun properly and don’t go around shooting people. Restrictions or not if someone wants a gun, good or bad they will get one.

      There are also laws that say you can’t drink alcohol while you are out carrying. There are also laws that say you can’t pull out your gun and point it at people or randomly shoot them. You also have to be 21 to carry a gun. You’re trying to prevent things that cannot be prevented.

      Report Post » black9897  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:11am

      @encinom:
      AND HERE YOU ARE AGAIN….a pathetic liberal troll out to TRY AND RUIN THE THINKING AND MINDSET OF TRUE PATRIOT AMERICANS. Sorry little worm, it just won’t happen.

      True American LAW-ABIDING citizens are just that: law-abiding, good and decent. THEY, not you, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN a collectible weapon and one that should or could be used on a firing range or in case they need to defend their home.

      I say to the government and to people like you: GET OUT OF OUR WAY OR YOU WILL BE BE BITING OFF MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW and WE, THE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS, WILL SPIT YOU OUT SO THE DOGS CAN EAT YOU FOR BREAKFAST.

      Your whining is pathetic. Your laws are pathetic. It IS human nature to PROTECT life, home, and property with anything available. I have an arsenal. YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT. Just like you will never find MOST guns that law-abiding citizens own. SO, YOU JUST KEEP SPINNING YOUR WHEELS AND YOUR MOUTH AND TRY TO TAKE ***ANY*** GUN WE HAVE AWAY.

      What really gets me is YOU SCREAM AT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, yet you give a pass to your own government for FAST AND FURIOUS. You liberals are the biggest hypocrites there are.

      GO BACK TO SLEEP encinom. YOU REALLY ARE PATHETIC AND MOST TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS KNOW THIS AND THIS IS WHY YOUR PATHETIC PRESIDENT IS LOSING.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:13am

      @INCINOM:
      “No civilian needs military weapons, you have no right to have a private arsonal.”

      TOO LATE. NOW, TRY TO GET ‘EM!

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • muffythetuffy
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:31am

      BUT DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

      This was the issue your honor. If we do not have the rights written in the US Constitution then you and the entire Government no longer have the authority to govern us. Without the Constitution you are renegades that we and the community of nations must ignore and oppose. The first law passed by Congress, reaffirms the Right of The People to change their government when they must. MUST, your honor.

      Report Post »  
    • muffythetuffy
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:36am

      Scalia is worried about his legacy and how the books will report it. The Leftist Liberals control the book publishers and Scalia knows they will ignore him if he is not one of them. Same with Roberts, Roberts and his wife are ignored by the Beltway social circle and are never invited to functions. Now they will. If Scalia can help to disarm the American People he will have a Law School named after him.

      Report Post »  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:51am

      Actually, the judges can decide all they want – THE PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ABOUT THEIR GUNS – gun owners, that is.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • ultor-de-deus-exercitus
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:01pm

      It will be a bitch rounding mine up….MINE ARE LOADED.

      Report Post »  
    • Cowboy.1
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:26pm

      I am getting tired of the so called Conservative Media using the term Assault Weapon. What’s an Assault Weapon anyhow?I didn’t know a AR15; or any other semi automatic long gun or pistol could go out and Assault people. Let’s be fair and Stop calling the AR15 an Assault Weapon. Anything used to hurt, maim, or kill another human is an Assault Weapon whether it is a knife, baseball bat. a piece of pipe or even a # 2 pencil. Come on let’s be fair. I have never heard any of these Assault weapons being call an Assault Weapon. Assault Weapons Ban.Come on Scalia wake up.

      Report Post » Cowboy.1  
    • sWampy
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:43pm

      Scalia was the most conservative Reagan could get through a congress controlled completely by liberals. They don’t give conservative judges a chance at all, they reject them off hand.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:48pm

      The 2nd amendment is here so citizens can protect themselves from the government, not from other citizens. How the hell are you to protect yourself from the government if they have bigger weapons than you?

      Report Post »  
  • Penn
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:29pm

    I wonder what the outcome would be if the “rebels” in Syria had the same firepower as the “government” forces? The only reason a government places restrictions on its populace regarding the type of weapons the people may own is to control that populace. Crazed gunmen may have killed thousands over the years but governments have killed millions and millions of their own citizens. So tell me, who is more dangerous?

    Report Post »  
    • ScottG-CO
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:47pm

      Spot on evaluation!

      Report Post »  
    • JUSTANOTHEROPINION
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:59pm

      re: Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 4:41pm

      Penn, please immediately proceed to the head of the class. Well stated, concise, and 100% on target. You are a patriot sir/madam. Peace.

      Report Post » cykonas  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 5:53pm

      @penn

      You have hit the nail on the head.

      This is another gentle nudge. The government knows that it cannot move too obviously on gun control, so here is the trial balloon. They are keeping the conversation going, nibbling a little bit off each time.

      Next will be the registration of weapons and owners for the safety of all Americans. This is exactly what Nazi Germany did in Poland. Once they know where the guns are, they will force the surrender of a small number of guns, a certain “class” of weapons, just as in Poland, for your further safety.

      When sufficient weapons have been removed, so that the threat to the government has been minimised, they will use the register to force the confiscation of all the rest – again for your safety.

      Just as they did in Poland.

      And Russia.

      And China.

      And in every other country where tyrants wanted absolute control.

      Ice T was correct. The second amendment is not to allow guns for hunting, but for the citizen’s defence against a tyrannical government.

      Report Post »  
    • MCDAVE
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 6:54pm

      And Obama is that dangerous.. Gun and ammo sales at record levels since he has been in office give good evidence that millions of Americans can see the truth. We may have to defend ourselves Against our government, no longer under our control.

      Report Post »  
    • yathink
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:37pm

      Yes very good. It’s actually right at 257,000,000, that’s million. It’s called Demmocide.

      Report Post » yathink  
    • Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:52pm

      This guy just wants to have laws in place to deal with the revolution if Obummer wins in Nov. If they want a fight, we can give them one. Our guns will only go if and when we are dead.

      Report Post » Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 9:11pm

      Nothing more than an arm chair militia spewing NRA BS. The truth is their has never been a tyrant in American history, the truth is the 2nd Amendment has done nothing but leave a trail of dead innocence and blood across the country. Auroa is just the latest victim of the NRA and this relic amendment.

      Report Post »  
    • Cymry
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 9:28pm

      well said.

      i shudder to think what would happen if incrementally/outright the us government decided to restrict/confiscate weapons. my guess is that there would be a civil war that would make the first one look easy.

      Report Post » Cymry  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:06pm

      encinom
      Holmes’s act is, yet again, an illustration of the failure for educational institutions to recognize the dangerously mentally ill (and let’s not forget pedophiles) and act upon their threats. It has been revealed Holmes was being treated for mental illness and kept a journal of his plans. And now the university is playing the ‘who knew what when’ game. But, by all, means use govt. as a sledge rather than a scalpel. I pity you for your obvious fear and the fact you are controlled by emotion rather than fact. Think (or rather, emote) as you will.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:19pm

      The fact is the NRAlax gun laws allow the mentally unstable to legally purchase the instruments of death. The gun nuts are the ones running from the truth, living in their paranoid world created for them by the NRA.

      Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:38pm

      Dear Encinom
      (Smacking head in disgust)
      The NRA has NEVER, to the best of my knowledge, challenged or said a cross word towards any state’s probable cause process. As someone who has purchased quite a few firearms, I can tell you that each time I was vetted on the spot. Is that enough? Yes, for some; no, for some.
      Also, as a matter of full disclosure, I am a FORMER NRA member. I wasn’t too keen on their embrace (as with too many lobbying groups) of different rules for different people. They also had a bad habit of telling me how to vote and sending stuff to my home I didn’t ask for and then expecting me to reimburse the NRA.
      Yours is a logic argument. I‘d have to say it’s a sloppy combination of both the red herring and straw man. Allow me to play along: Many of the gun deaths in this country come back to the fact that my brothers and sisters in the mental health field aren’t proactive enough in identifying and reporting the dangerously mentally ill; they have blood on their hands.

      Wow. This IS fun.

      Report Post »  
    • atechgeek
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:54am

      @ENCINOM : There is no helping you or getting through to you. You clearly have your mind set. Please move to China or Russia where your opinion is the majority. You live in the land of the free .. so you are free to leave when you like. Try and touch our Constitution and you will not like the results. I promise you this.

      Report Post »  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:20am

      mMMMMMMmmmmmm, if I were a Democrat, I’d have to say THE POPULACE.
      If I were a true Libertarian or true patriotic American, I would say THE GOVERNMENT.

      Government = 0
      Population = 100

      Government loses. They will always lose because they FORGET that by the time they decide to CONTROL something, it is too late. People are smarter than the government. We do anything to protect what we have – INCLUDING OUR BELOVED GUNS.

      So, to all you pathetic liberals out there, YOU LOSE. YOUR GOVERNMENT LOSES.

      The American people win. YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THAT, TRY AS YOU MAY. You may THINK you can or you can TRY, but YOU NEVER WILL. And, YOU JUST DON’T GET IT, DO YOU LIBERALS?

      If every single law-abiding citizen were made to carry a gun – THERE WOULD BE NO CRIME.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:50am

      @nzkiwi:
      Registration of weapons? Mmmm, let me see. I have quite a few UNREGISTERED WEAPONS. Will I give them up? NO. Will I register them to make the govt happy? NO. Will I show my guns? NO. Will I tell anyone where they are hidden? NO. And, you cannot make me BECAUSE as far as the govt or anyone else is concerned, I HAVE NO GUNS. Nope! Nada. Not a single one.

      If anyone on this board, in the govt, in the world, REALLY BELIEVES that law-abiding gun owners will actually PARTICIPATE in anything the govt asks them to do when it comes to their guns, THEN THEY ARE DELUSIONAL. AND, if they do give up their guns to please liberals, THEN THEY DIDN’T DESERVE THEM TO BEGIN WITH.

      NO ONE will EVER KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY GUNS. I am a collector. I love guns.
      I do not hunt, but I do a lot of target practice.

      So, I said all that to say this: STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE MEDIA, THE GOVT, AND LIBERALS WHEN THEY begin harassing gun owners. NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO OR HOW THEY DO IT, they will never get our gun(s). IT IS AN MOOT ISSUE.

      See the govt squawks a lot, they complain a lot, they flap their jaws a lot, BUT THEY KNOW THAT IT IS STILL WE, THE PEOPLE AND MOST OF WE, THE PEOPLE ARE EITHER NRA MEMBERS OR GUN LOVERS. Try persuading THEM to give up their guns. IT JUST WON’T HAPPEN – EVER.

      The minute a law requires you to hand them in, all gun owners will shoot the messengers. IT’S CALLED – CIVIL WAR.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:04pm

      @encinom: AGAIN, here I am.
      You are sitting there quietly, watching your favorite TV show. You hear a noise in the kitchen, but you think it is your cat. So, you turn up the TV and continue watching. (This was your 1st mistake)
      Suddenly, a masked man, about 6 feet tall, comes from behind you and sticks his gun against your head. He tells you to stand up and turn around. You do because you are scared.
      He leads you into the bedroom, ties you up, while he waits for your kids to get home. HE IS A PEDOPHILE, but worse yet, HE LOVES TO SMELL FRESH BLOOD.
      You are sitting there in desperation.
      IF you had a gun hidden,YOU COULD SCOOT OVER and grab it.
      (Most gun owners have precautions around their house for such things – knives and guns hidden.)
      But, you don’t, so you wait in fear. Suddenly, you hear your 2 little girls come thru the door yelling for YOU, the parent. They’re home and wanting a snack. But, then you hear SCREAMING…….YOU FIGURE OUT THE REST, stupid.

      1. YOU COULD HAVE PROTECTED YOUR CHILDREN. YOU CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE A CITIZEN SHOULD OWN A GUN.
      2. You could have PREVENTED THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING BECAUSE IN YOUR ARMCHAIR, A GUN COULD HAVE BEEN HIDDEN and as you got up, you could have grabbed it, making an excuse to get the remote and turn off the TV – some excuse, any would do. MOST CRIMINALS ARE STUPID.

      But, no, you would forfeit yours and your children’s lives for the govt telling YOU to NOT protect your family. YOU

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
    • I support God's Israel!
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:29pm

      the last words were cut off….I was going to say:

      YOU LOSE. YOUR CHILDREN LOSE. YOU, AND NO ONE ELSE, ALLOWED THIS EVIL MAN TO HURT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN. You will carry that with you for the rest of your life because YOU DECIDED FOR SOMEONE ELSE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO GUNS FOR ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY – - – - – - – - – -

      ………except THE CRIMINAL, OF COURSE. YOU, and people like you, ARE STUPID AND IGNORANT. This is why criminals go where there are NO GUNS.

      The more EVIL this world becomes (AND, IT IS BECOMING MORE EVIL), the more mankind needs guns to protect against EVIL. Figure it out dumbo or stay in your easy chair AND DIE.
      UNLESS YOU DEFEND YOURSELF, no one will do it for you.
      UNLESS YOU DEFEND YOUR OWN HOME AND FAMILY, no will do it for you.

      NO GUNS = Only EVIL people will have them because THEY DO NOT OBEY THE LAW.

      However, KNOW THIS. There are just some laws I WILL NOT OBEY and that are those same laws THAT TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS TO PROTECT MYSELF USING FORCE, USING A GUN OR ANY OTHER WEAPON I CAN GET MY HANDS ON.

      It is MY RIGHT UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENT and IT SHOULD NEVER BE CHANGED.

      It would be better to just STRENGTHEN current guns laws – NOT CREATE NEW ONES so more true criminals are punished severely. Right now, you are trying to punish to law-abiding citizen – YOU and ME.

      Sorry, BUT YOU WILL LOSE AND YOU WILL BE SORRY.

      Report Post » I support God's Israel!  
  • Maximus_Delta
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:28pm

    well these a-holes said that obamacare was legal… now they will say every gun that has a trigger on it is illegal… bunch of one world government goons…

    Report Post » Maximus_Delta  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:30pm

      yes I also don’t know why anyone shocked at this after the obamacare ruling it should hve enlightened everyone opened eyes to the fact that our constitution is no longer relevant we no onger have anyone willing to uphld it. also I have had several so called assault rifles…stupid name if you ask me since there isn‘t much of a dfference between them and my deer rifles except the ar’s look more intimidatng…my guns have never hurt anyone. I just and so sick of the same political debates every day every year over and over again. what does the Bible say again? as a dog returns to its vomit so a fool to his folly…just more of the same over and over

      Report Post »  
    • wakewiseone
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 4:58pm

      yep……….they ll say you can own a slingshot because it doesnt have a trigger. but a gun, thats a no no.

      Report Post »  
  • NLenz
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:27pm

    ‘But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize.’

    Oooh, they banned ‘frightening weapons’. So we‘ll ban ’frightening weapons’, right? Pray, tell me, constitutional scholar Scalia, who will be the one determining what a ‘frightening weapon’ is? The gun-control folks at, say, the Brady Campaign, who soil themselves every time they see a picture of a cap-gun?

    Yeah…that’ll work.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:41pm

      You mean like pirates couldn’t have cannons .. yea that worked! Maybe he means I can’t put a cannon in my front yard … anyone know where I can get one? ;-)

      Report Post »  
    • randy
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:49pm

      A BB Gun is frightening if I hit you in the eye with one.
      BAN BB GUNS!

      Report Post » randy  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 4:18pm

      I watched the replay at 2pm … he said he was NOT talking about a cannon . .. so now I really want one!

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 5:42pm

      CatB
      No, he said the Second Amendment didn’t apply to cannons, because bear means carry and you can’t carry a cannon, therefore, there is nothing to stop the government from restricting who can have one. He implied that bazookas and rocket launchers might be an ambiguous case that the Court would have to consider, because you can carry them, but they can be as destructive as many of the cannons that were being built at the time of our founding.

      Report Post »  
  • jimbo_from_suwanee
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:26pm

    Actually, if you look at the history of firearms, the People had better weapons for distance and accuracy in the standard hunting rifle of the day as compared to a musket that a standard solider would have carried. So, history shows that an individual among WE THE PEOPLE was able to better arm himself or herself than the government armed rank and file infantry.

    Also, assault weapons are banned. Assault weapons are defined as weapons with a selector switch on them with the ability to go from simi-auto to fully auto. These cannot be purchased and owned without a federal license. So, what they are talking about is banning ugly or scary looking guns.

    Think about this evil man in Colorado choose what was the scariest looking gun, but what if he had choice the most affect weapon for those close quarter conditions?…a five shot 12GA shot-gun with five shots. The massacre would have been even worse.

    So, it is not about safety. It is not about control of guns. It is about control of people. The ultimate reason for the second amendment is in the Declaration:

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    God bless those who love freedom and who are ready and armed to fight for it.

    Report Post » jimbo_from_suwanee  
  • Mary Just
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:21pm

    The only thing I know about the Supreme Court Is that they are Supremely Corrupt and have nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:24pm

      They are too afraid of what the liberal press will say. Disgusting .. they are supposed to be above that.

      Report Post »  
    • iampraying4u
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:25pm

      Mary Just AMEN

      Report Post »  
  • Another Voice 2011
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:20pm

    Justice Scalia has sold out to the Marxists the same way Roberts did. His words on the 2nd Amendment are wrong. Any intelligent person (which Scalia isn‘t or he’s a dishonest) can read the and Amendment and see that there are no words placing restrictions on the People. George Washington was asked if there were any limitations on the weapons an American citizen may have and he said,”NO! They may keep anything necessary to overthrow a tyrannical Government.”

    The American Republic is dead. We now live in a Police State, run by an “Elite” group that pass laws for the People, but that exempt themselves from those same laws. I want to spread the word that James Madison was asked whether the SCOTUS had the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws and he emphatically said, “NO! Why would they have fought England, formed a government with three equally powerful branches, only to give the ultimate power to control the Country to five men?” They made sure that they did not give that power to any one branch, but that power was usurped (to the pleasure of the lawyers and politicians) and nobody refuted or stopped the Court from grasping that authority illegally.

    Report Post »  
  • RANGER1965
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:19pm

    We have laws on the books that limit access to fully automatic weapons, explosive weapons such as grenades, and shoulder fired missiles. There are also laws against owning and deploying military weapons such as armed tanks, and helicopter gun ships.

    From a strict constitutional standpoint is limiting our access to this weaponary constitutional?

    And if not, should any weapons be limited?

    Taken to the extreme, can an individual who is wealthy enough own a nuclear weapon, or chemical?

    And if not, what should be the limits of individual ownership? Where is the line?

    RANGER

    Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:38pm

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      It’s pretty clear to me that congress has no authority to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.
      Nothing about permits from government to own a firearm or sell firearms.It‘s my contention that all so called ’gun laws’ passed since the second amendment are unconstitutional,I may be in the minority on this but it’s just my opinion.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • RANGER1965
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:12pm

      Which for all practical purposes means that anyone can own and operate any weapon, any time. As long as they don’t break a law in using it.

      The temptation for some super wealthy idiot to off himself in style by levelling a city, or dog fighting his F-22 Raptor might be too tempting to resist. I believe practical limitations are necessary for national security.

      RANGER

      Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • theprofessor1031
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:17pm

      @progressiveslayer. I agree 100% with you. I also believe, any state or local municipalities that make laws regarding firearms, are also in violation of the 10th amendment as well as the 2nd.

      Report Post » theprofessor1031  
    • Belchfire V-8
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:21am

      Actually “Ranger”, there is a privately owned Harrier, an F-18, many Migs, etc. True they aren’t armed, but there are those of us out here, that used to work on such things. And, there are home machine shops, etc. We won’t, as long as we don’t need to.

      Report Post » Belchfire V-8  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:15am

      If I need a Cobra gunship, an M60 or/and a LAW I am already at war.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • randy
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:17pm

    It’s coming people!
    We’re living history now.
    What side will yo be on?
    In 2213, they’ll read about the good people of this country that took their country back from gangsters, thugs, marxists, communists, and the ill fated cult of Islam which will no longer exists.

    Report Post » randy  
    • Gizzy
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:47pm

      John Titor, I’ve been wondering when you would surface again!

      Report Post »  
    • Gizzy
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 10:48pm

      Randy, Are you really John Titor??? I’ve been wondering when you would surface again!

      Report Post »  
  • The Gooch
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:16pm

    You know, I tried a search on what limitation(s) the founders intended upon firearms. The odd thing is, the search engine kept redirecting to me on articles on how the founders intended to limit government. Wacky.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:49pm

      “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Yes .. really not hard to understand.

      Report Post »  
    • Lee_in_PA
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 2:56pm

      The only Amendment that states SHALL not be infringed.. What’s not to understand?

      Report Post » Lee_in_PA  
    • sickoftalking
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 3:06pm

      The founders didn’t intend the Constitution to impose any restrictions on state or local governments. So its more relevant to look at what impositions were accepted on a state or local level than to look at the Constitution. Although, I’m not really sure how any of this really figures into the Fourteenth Amendment argument and by what logic the Bill of Rights are incorporated for state law.

      Report Post » sickoftalking  
  • MBA
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:14pm

    Oh, like the court decided obamycare wasn’t unconstitutional. Oh please–take a hike you worthless political garbage bags.

    Report Post »  
  • dennisS
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:11pm

    The beginning of the end of our Republic when “conservatives” are now mimicking the communists!

    Report Post »  
    • The Gooch
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:39pm

      The term is “progressive.” Wanna read some really ‘interpretive’ musings on the U.S. Constitution with specific regard to the 2nd Amendment. Enjoy the ramblings of another SCOTUS justice:
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/
      So the 2nd Amendment was really just a political tool to appease the whackjobs from that era. It was gifted to them out of frustration and political expediency by James Madison. And surely this discounts EVERY statement made by the founders and their contemporaries as to the purpose and import of the 2nd Amendent. Well, now that we have that cleared up, let’s move on to the “real” purpose of the court.
      Like John Edwards channeling dead babies, Justice Breyer seems able to go beyond the written words of the founders and is able to speak (and emote) for them as they would SURELY view the present day. And just so we’re clear, the founders were intent on establishing what limits govt. could place on the people and at what point hunting and target shooting could be limited.
      Uh, wait a minute. So the vast majority of my history teachers and books are all wrong? Damn.
      Folks, this is the “quality” and true intent of your govt.: To assert it is you who will be limited &, if necessary, silenced (and I mean speech-wise, not permanently… yet). This is the hubris of govt. gifted to you by ol’ Honest Abe & all the big gubment heroes that came after him.

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 3:29pm

      Gooch, well presented; no, very well presented!

      Report Post » cykonas  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:02pm

      “This is the hubris of govt. gifted to you by ol’ Honest Abe & all the big gubment heroes that came after him.”

      Amen and Amen!

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:10pm

    They need to be rounded up and imprisoned, just like our entire criminal federal government…..

    Report Post »  
  • No Owebama
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:09pm

    The only limitation our Founding Fathers had in mind was the power given to government. not if you could own a musket with a detachable magazine.

    Report Post » No Owebama  
  • moose8684
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:09pm

    “It will have to be decided” whether or not the government can regulate certain types of guns. No, Justice Scalia, it has already been decided. The 2nd Amendment emphatically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not say eliminated, it does not say banned, it does not say terminated, it says infringed. Please look up the definition of the word infringe, and you have the decision. You, along with the rest of our governing bodies have absolutely no authority to regulate, eliminate, penalize, tax, or in any other way INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you are so interested in 18th century precedents on the matter why don’t you research the writings of people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason?

    While it is clear to anyone what the intent of the founders was in the 2nd Amendment, we are witnessing the complete destruction of our Constitution. I believe it was Woodrow Wilson that said something to the effect of: the true significance of the Civil War is that it cemented the concept that the Federal Government has the final say on the limitations of its own power. We are seeing this prophetic comment come true before our very eyes. Between the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, CISPA, NDRP, and the outright assault on gun rights, they have effectively destroyed the Bill of Rights in just a few short years.

    Report Post »  
    • PatriotofPast
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:22pm

      “INALIENABLE RIGHTS”… Rights GIVEN TO WE THE PEOPLE BY GOD!!!!
      And NO MAN/MORTAL will take, change, disturb those Rights.
      So Justices, IF YOU THINK you have more power than MY HEAVENLY FATHER… Try to take my firearms.

      Report Post »  
    • TRILO
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:40pm

      You said it! It is just sad that so many people who call themselves “conservatives” continue to fawn over and support candidates and representatives currently in office that support and voted for these freedom and liberty stealing bills. Of course, they were all passed under the guise of protecting We the Sheeple.

      Sad day in America, a country that used to be the land of the free and home of the brave. We are now just the the land of security cameras and drones and the home of the debt enslaved.

      Report Post » TRILO  
  • Mark0331
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:08pm

    Molon labe

    Report Post » Mark0331  
    • RANGER1965
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:20pm

      I always wanted to fight in the shade. *grin*

      Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:20pm

      Indeed,that time is near.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Tree_Butcher
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:42pm

      Patriots outnumber Quislings by far. There will be plenty in the ranks of law enforcement that will hide behind the thin excuse of ‘following orders’ or ‘doing the job’ or ‘it’s my duty’. A man defending his home is worth 10 of these.

      I pray it does not come to this, but I’m ready.

      Report Post » Tree_Butcher  
    • Mil-Dot
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:07pm

      @Tree Butcher
      What you say is true. But, I will give them no quarter. A traitor is a traitor. Simple as that.

      Report Post »  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:07pm

    Heads up, AMERICA.

    PRAY ON!

    KNOW OUR CONSTITUTION, folks. Quickly before “they” change it forever.

    Report Post »  
    • Gizzy
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 11:16pm

      They can only modify their copy, not mine!

      Report Post »  
  • BIgWheeler
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:03pm

    Be careful Mr. Scalia, we have those guns to protect us from people like you.

    Report Post » BIgWheeler  
  • Liesmasher
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:02pm

    Already done 236 years ago… now find something useful to do with your time.

    Report Post » Liesmasher  
  • endgamer
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:01pm

    The Justices need to be replaced… We need to start the impeachment process OR pressure them to step down.

    Report Post » endgamer  
    • BIgWheeler
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:19pm

      It’ll have to wait until we get a conservative administration or they will be replaced with more of the same.

      Report Post » BIgWheeler  
    • CatB
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:23pm

      Yes .. they can’t follow the Constitution of the UNITED STATES .. then they need to be replaced with people who will. Pray Obama doesn’t get the chance to make more “appointments” he picks COMMUNISTS!

      Report Post »  
  • PossumStu
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 12:57pm

    I believe it has been decided. Mr. Wallace, Justice Scalia, check your copy of the constitution. I believe it uses the words “shall not be infringed.“ Now go look up the word ”infringe.” This isn’t rocket science, folks. You don’t need a law degree, or even a college education, to understand this.

    Report Post » PossumStu  
  • The Gooch
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 12:53pm

    “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”
    Um, would you be so kind as to elaborate on this general utterance? Who, specifically, were “they”, what were the limitations specifically and what was the exact nature of the arms in question? You shouldn’t be allowed to throw garbage like this out without it being challenged. Shame on Wallace for not asking the obvious follow up.
    Humor us. Review WHY the founders felt the 2nd Amendment was so important. Hunting and skeet shooting, right?
    Prepare for your medicine, America.

    Report Post »  
    • bobefann
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:21pm

      There is a time coming in America where those who are foolishly against the Constitution and the Second Amendment will suddenly be for it. But it will be too late. Those who do not want any Americans to own guns, there will soon come a day where they wish they had one. Those who stand against the Constitution, will apoligize and beg to be accepted by the ones who gave their life and live by the Constitution. Those people will beg to deaf ears. They are on their own. The time is coming for the tree of liberty to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

      Report Post » bobefann  
  • EWRoss
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 12:52pm

    At the “Nation’s Gun Show” at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Virginia, this weekend, law-abiding Americans that own, use, and respect guns gathered as they do there every couple months to buy, sell and trade guns and all the paraphernalia that goes with them. What struck when I went to the gun show wasn’t that there may be a mass murderer lurking in the crowd, but the kind of people that come to these shows and why they come. http://www.ewross.com/americans_that_own_use_and_respect_guns.htm

    Report Post » EWRoss  
  • burnteye86
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 12:51pm

    “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

    What were those limitations and where might I find them in the Constitution your Honor?

    Report Post » burnteye86  
    • Raven249
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 1:50pm

      Ain’t in the Constitution, but I believe there is one limitation on the right to bear arms that is entirely legitimate. Buying power of the citizen in question. Beyond that, I don’t believe there are any.

      Report Post »  
    • Another Voice 2011
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 7:45pm

      You’re correct!
      The 2nd Amnedment states “….to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”. Obviously Scalia had a brain fart. There was no limitation on any sort of weapons, even those that a person cannot “bear easily” since their Right to KEEP firearms is not limited to those that could be carried easily. Scalia has sold his soul; it appears he’s accepted the Faustian bargain as Roberts has. The SCOTUS is now an arm of the United Nation and the Council on Foreign Relations. Do I smell the Brandenburgs?

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:07pm

      @anothervoice2011

      Brandenburgs?? Do you mean the Bilderbergers? Good God, man, get your conspiracy theorists straight. You mooks have so many of them that I know it’s difficult to keep them straight, but please make an effort. Peace.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • mrsuperpat
    Posted on July 29, 2012 at 12:50pm

    More crap from a fake conservative sellout. Why would the idiot even through this out there to entice more gun grabbing. Absolutely pathetic.

    Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 8

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love