Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Justice Scalia: Guns May Be Regulated
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="abajaj11" data-source="post: 1857623" data-attributes="member: 3553"><p>Well, registered democrat Chris Wallace and other Fox news liberals may crow for a while that they got Justice Scalia to admit that "reasonable gun controls" are OK. However, I think they are wrong. </p><p></p><p>Here is why. </p><p>Scalia is a very smart man. If it were not for scalia, our RKBA would not be an individual right. Look at heller v/s DC, and read the text of the majority opinion. It was written by Scalia. In that opinion, he makes a great case for why service rifles in the military are fine for civilians. </p><p></p><p>In the Chris wallace interview today, Scalia's words on how 2A does not cover fearsome weapons directly addresses the argument made by leftists that " is it legal to own a tank? or a grenade launcher?...so then why is it legal to own an assault rifle". Of course, anyone with common sense knows the logical end to this leftist/fascist argument is: it is not legal to own ANY lethal weapons. Scalia is purposely bordering 2A to rule these arguments out. </p><p></p><p>When liberal democrat Chris Wallace asks him if it is OK to have guns that can shoot 100 rounds a minute (whatever that means), Scalia, instead of refuting it, says "we'll see". Scalia does not want to reveal his hand to a journalist like Wallace. Instead, he has to appear to be open minded, even though I am convinced in his mind, Scalia is quite sure that the current laws are perfectly adequate and we do not need any more restrictions. </p><p></p><p>However, he has to keep folks like Anthony Kennedy and now Chief Justice Roberts, who are both swing votes, in line. You do not keep folks like this in line by aggressively attacking liberals, but by being open minded and convincing them about your point of view. That is how he managed to get the 5-4 win in heller vs. DC, a VERY important win, without which there would be no individual RKBA today. </p><p></p><p>Scalia is fighting for our rights to be recognized in a different arena than an Internet Forum. He is fighting in the Supreme Court.</p><p></p><p>He is one of my heroes where RKBA is concerned. </p><p></p><p>I wish Romney would appoint folks like him. that would be great! </p><p><img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="abajaj11, post: 1857623, member: 3553"] Well, registered democrat Chris Wallace and other Fox news liberals may crow for a while that they got Justice Scalia to admit that "reasonable gun controls" are OK. However, I think they are wrong. Here is why. Scalia is a very smart man. If it were not for scalia, our RKBA would not be an individual right. Look at heller v/s DC, and read the text of the majority opinion. It was written by Scalia. In that opinion, he makes a great case for why service rifles in the military are fine for civilians. In the Chris wallace interview today, Scalia's words on how 2A does not cover fearsome weapons directly addresses the argument made by leftists that " is it legal to own a tank? or a grenade launcher?...so then why is it legal to own an assault rifle". Of course, anyone with common sense knows the logical end to this leftist/fascist argument is: it is not legal to own ANY lethal weapons. Scalia is purposely bordering 2A to rule these arguments out. When liberal democrat Chris Wallace asks him if it is OK to have guns that can shoot 100 rounds a minute (whatever that means), Scalia, instead of refuting it, says "we'll see". Scalia does not want to reveal his hand to a journalist like Wallace. Instead, he has to appear to be open minded, even though I am convinced in his mind, Scalia is quite sure that the current laws are perfectly adequate and we do not need any more restrictions. However, he has to keep folks like Anthony Kennedy and now Chief Justice Roberts, who are both swing votes, in line. You do not keep folks like this in line by aggressively attacking liberals, but by being open minded and convincing them about your point of view. That is how he managed to get the 5-4 win in heller vs. DC, a VERY important win, without which there would be no individual RKBA today. Scalia is fighting for our rights to be recognized in a different arena than an Internet Forum. He is fighting in the Supreme Court. He is one of my heroes where RKBA is concerned. I wish Romney would appoint folks like him. that would be great! :) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Justice Scalia: Guns May Be Regulated
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom