Interesting video on the 2nd Amendment

[dbroncos78087]

Source: PoliticusUSA.com

Honestly, I thought this was fake when I saw it first, but it appears to be a legit interview between Chris Wallace and Justice Scalia. Personally I'm not a fan of our Justices going on these shows at all, but the line of thinking on this one scares me a bit. I did not think there would be a question in the slightest whether owning a rocket launcher would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

[corralski]

He appeared on Wallace's Sunday program, the comment pertaining to hand carried rocket launchers was interesting. Although I cant say what caused him to comment that way I think that he only said that the rockets would have to be considered, not necessarily approved from what I saw.

I did think that the author of the blog was out of line with comparing a brief case sized nuclear weapon to a fire arm, pretty ignorant of any firearms knowledge if you ask me.

The whole second amendment thing has become a negotiation of sorts where both sides are making inflated claims to end up somewhere back in the middle when the dust settles.

There needs to be some kind of control to make sure that lunatics can't legally get their hands on fire arms but I am not completely sure how to balance that with my desire to purchase firearms that I want to own. In the end someone is going to have to make a pretty serious compromise to their beliefs.....

[dbroncos78087]

He appeared on Wallace's Sunday program, the comment pertaining to hand carried rocket launchers was interesting. Although I cant say what caused him to comment that way I think that he only said that the rockets would have to be considered, not necessarily approved from what I saw.

I did think that the author of the blog was out of line with comparing a brief case sized nuclear weapon to a fire arm, pretty ignorant of any firearms knowledge if you ask me.

The whole second amendment thing has become a negotiation of sorts where both sides are making inflated claims to end up somewhere back in the middle when the dust settles.

There needs to be some kind of control to make sure that lunatics can't legally get their hands on fire arms but I am not completely sure how to balance that with my desire to purchase firearms that I want to own. In the end someone is going to have to make a pretty serious compromise to their beliefs.....

It was certainly an odd dialogue, most hypotheticals are though.

As far as the authors of the blog, I will agree they are left-slanted. So that doesn't surprise me at all. But I don't think it comes from an ignorance but the same type of frame of mind that the Wallace-Scalia came from hypothetical speculation.

As far as the debate on guns and gun control, I don't think Scalia's comments do very much other than to muddy the water and inflame both sides. I don't often agree with Scalia but I do respect that he is incredibly intelligent but this side of him is ill-suited.

Very few people can pull off the intelligent-man-of-the-people. Even if he can, a sitting Supreme Court Justice should not try. He is no Milton Friedman, any of his points on YouTube show how you can be an intelligent-man-of-the-people.

[corralski]

It was certainly an odd dialogue, most hypotheticals are though.

As far as the authors of the blog, I will agree they are left-slanted. So that doesn't surprise me at all. But I don't think it comes from an ignorance but the same type of frame of mind that the Wallace-Scalia came from hypothetical speculation.

As far as the debate on guns and gun control, I don't think Scalia's comments do very much other than to muddy the water and inflame both sides. I don't often agree with Scalia but I do respect that he is incredibly intelligent but this side of him is ill-suited.

Very few people can pull off the intelligent-man-of-the-people. Even if he can, a sitting Supreme Court Justice should not try. He is no Milton Friedman, any of his points on YouTube show how you can be an intelligent-man-of-the-people.

I don't even consider which way a commentator leans anymore. I listen long enough to see if there are any truths in what they are saying and if there are none, then I am through.

As far as Scalia's comments, all in the game, although if I'm reading you right he shouldn't be a player, and I agree with that. I do wonder if he is reaching out to conservatives in light of the Roberts decision, something else he shouldn't do. Politically the Justices should be on an island, no exceptions.These men and women should be above reproach and their decisions must have integrity of the highest order.

Man of the people? I won't even touch that.

As far as gun control, and I know this is cliche, but outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Show me any example that would bolster my confidence in our government not to **** this up. War on drugs? Border control? Immigration? Taxation? I'm going to get a cramp in my wrist.

I'm sorry but I'm going to keep my firearms and support anyone that agrees with me, even if someday it makes me the random victim of gun violence. The risks are too great for myself to have it any other way....

[dbroncos78087]

I don't even consider which way a commentator leans anymore. I listen long enough to see if there are any truths in what they are saying and if there are none, then I am through.

As far as Scalia's comments, all in the game, although if I'm reading you right he shouldn't be a player, and I agree with that. I do wonder if he is reaching out to conservatives in light of the Roberts decision, something else he shouldn't do. Politically the Justices should be on an island, no exceptions.These men and women should be above reproach and their decisions must have integrity of the highest order.

Man of the people? I won't even touch that.

As far as gun control, and I know this is cliche, but outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Show me any example that would bolster my confidence in our government not to **** this up. War on drugs? Border control? Immigration? Taxation? I'm going to get a cramp in my wrist.

I'm sorry but I'm going to keep my firearms and support anyone that agrees with me, even if someday it makes me the random victim of gun violence. The risks are too great for myself to have it any other way....

I suppose I agree with you on that, unfortunately there is more money to be made in partisanship. It will guarantee you a roughly 50% slice of the viewership. The sliver that wants unbias analysis is not very large and certainly not worth risky dollars to cover, or so it seems.

I don't think he should be a player but I'm also not naive enough to believe that the justices are robots and don't have opinions. Otherwise we would see 9-0 decisions on every case. Though for the record, I believe that 70% or so cases end up that way.

Very few people that I can remember have been able to relate complex ideas such as economics (in Milton Friedman's case) to the masses and do so in a way that they not only hear the message but can also digest it and make use of it in their own life.

I do agree with you on making it illegal not being a solution to our problems. You are right that they will likely still buy guns just as they do with other things that are illegal. But like most instances, just because making it illegal doesn't zero out the usage, it does drastically reduce unwanted use. Having a speed limit doesn't stop everyone from going too fast, but it helps and does prevent unnecessary deaths. My general view on gun control is that you should be able to own a firearm of your choosing so long as it doesn't have high capacity rounds, you aren't a violent criminal, convicted of multi-year felonies (an example being embezzlement or something that is really serious), or been placed in an insane asylum. There may be more finer details that I am leaving out or forgetting, but overall I take a stance towards perfectly legal private ownership of firearms. But I don't think the right is universal and applies to every weapon.

For instance, with a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one might read that I have a right to a nuclear arm. Since the word gun or firearm is never actually used, it simply says "Arms".

[corralski]

I suppose I agree with you on that, unfortunately there is more money to be made in partisanship. It will guarantee you a roughly 50% slice of the viewership. The sliver that wants unbias analysis is not very large and certainly not worth risky dollars to cover, or so it seems.

I don't think he should be a player but I'm also not naive enough to believe that the justices are robots and don't have opinions. Otherwise we would see 9-0 decisions on every case. Though for the record, I believe that 70% or so cases end up that way.

Very few people that I can remember have been able to relate complex ideas such as economics (in Milton Friedman's case) to the masses and do so in a way that they not only hear the message but can also digest it and make use of it in their own life.

I do agree with you on making it illegal not being a solution to our problems. You are right that they will likely still buy guns just as they do with other things that are illegal. But like most instances, just because making it illegal doesn't zero out the usage, it does drastically reduce unwanted use. Having a speed limit doesn't stop everyone from going too fast, but it helps and does prevent unnecessary deaths. My general view on gun control is that you should be able to own a firearm of your choosing so long as it doesn't have high capacity rounds, you aren't a violent criminal, convicted of multi-year felonies (an example being embezzlement or something that is really serious), or been placed in an insane asylum. There may be more finer details that I am leaving out or forgetting, but overall I take a stance towards perfectly legal private ownership of firearms. But I don't think the right is universal and applies to every weapon.

For instance, with a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one might read that I have a right to a nuclear arm. Since the word gun or firearm is never actually used, it simply says "Arms".

Justices are human too, entitled to their opinions, desires and what not just like everyone else. In their line of work I don't believe they should articulate those opinions through the news medium though, as much as they are citizens of this country, there should be a separation from the masses to ensure the, and excuse the use of this word here, purity of their rulings. I say this in the context that there was some speculation that Justice Roberts was influenced by press coverage and the possible threat of a convergence of occupy protesters at his residence. This is exposure that the court should not be subject to, I'm not suggesting sequestration here but some care needs to be taken so that is not even a hint of outside influence to the members of the court.

Back to gun control, it would be prudent for both sides to make some compromise here. Citizens probably don't need high capacity magazines and maybe not full auto versions of weapons offered that way, but have access through legal channels just the same. This mutt in Colorado is apparently some type of mental defective but still purchased his weapons over the counter legally? This seems to me as a complete failure on the part of government to get the job done. I am not at all familiar with Colorado laws, maybe they don't require background checks although I thought that the check and the waiting period were federal rules. Maybe there are other circumstances affecting this particular case that we don't yet know.

As to your last concern I don't believe that the constitution is going to allow explosives of any nature to be included. Although the second amendment only uses the word arms, I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be stretched to mean rocket launchers and suitcase sized nuclear weapons. These would not be practical for use by individuals, that is unless you listed terrorist as your occupation on your application (jk).

I believe that the founding fathers of this nation were no fools and they got this one right. It is now up to us that we continue that which we were given by them......

[asandhu23]

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

not exactly educational but funny.

[GGGGG-Men]

If you want to own and operate a car in New York (or at least Long Island where I grew up) you have to:

• Reach a minimum age of responsibility (16)
• Study a guide/manual in order to pass a written test which allows you to have a permit that grants you the privilege (not right) to operate the vehicle WITH supervision from an experienced driver.
• Take a usage field test (driving exam) with an expert instructor as appointed by a state regulatory facility (DMV) 2 years after having a permit (or 1 year if you take a driver's education class)
• Pass that exam based on the instructor's critique
• Fill out all paper work, pay fees, take picture for a license which every car you own will be recorded to.
• You have to provide this license in order to purchase the car.
• You have to insure the car with a minimum policy.
• You have to register the car with the state and pay a fee.

Similar practices are in all states.

Why aren't we doing AT LEAST all of this for guns? Why don't we turn the NRA into a regulatory body (like the DMV).....ok or create a similar body with the ability to grant permits, give instructional courses, grant licenses, record EVERY firearm in EVERY state? Hell, throw in a psych evaluation.

A first time gun owner should have to go through all of this, with the same b.s. registration and insurance fees and renewals as cars. As a person continues to be a responsible owner, maybe even taking more state/nation regulated classes and wants to be a collector/hunter/target shooter, they get more lenient on each gun purchase.


I know in some areas, like NY, it's very hard to get a pistol license and costs some money, but this should be nationwide.

Maybe it won't eliminate all the crazies, but it should make it a hell of a lot harder for them.

[metsbulls1025]

People have trouble getting mouth wash onto an air plane, yet any irresponsible person can walk into a store and buy a guy.

[BSD8393]

People have trouble getting mouth wash onto an air plane, yet any irresponsible person can walk into a store and buy a guy.

What the hell kind of stores do you go to?

[dbroncos78087]

People have trouble getting mouth wash onto an air plane, yet any irresponsible person can walk into a store and buy a guy.

I think in most state's that is illegal...sorry I couldn't resist.

We are nation of failed priorities. What you (meant to say) said would be funny if it weren't true.

[Your Daddy]

When discussing the 2nd amendment, I think we have to remember why our forefathers believed in the right to bear arms. It was not because they wanted to go out into the woods on their four-wheelers and shoot white tail deer from their tree stands covered in deer urine. No, it was because they believed that a populace should be armed so that they could protect, by arms if necessary, their freedoms as outlined in our constitution. The second amendment is a tricky issue because on one hand the populace should be armed enough to defend against a tyrannical coup. On the other hand, there should be protections against one person holding too much power. And the forefathers could not have foreseen weapons of mass destruction on the scale that we have today. And there are extremists on both sides who will feel their rights are being abridged, even if the constitution says otherwise. For example, see the health care debate.