In response to:

Michael Moore, Piers Morgan Have Meltdowns Over Feinstein Gun Control Failure

Cooperwise Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:49 PM
I watched that interview....Moore said there will be another shooting... as for banning assault rifles the 2008 Supreme Court decision Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:45 PM
So, in addition to loving Salami, he's also declared himself a Swami?
Ms Kelly Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:16 PM
I wonder what part of "shall not be infringed" it is that Justice Scalia does not understand?

Perhaps he needs a refresher course in reading comprehension.
Becca in TX Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:22 PM
Scalia is right-It's not a right to carry "any weapon whatsover, etc". If you look at dictionaries from the time, it's plain the the term "arms" would have meant, to the Founding Fathers, a weapon that you carry . Therefore, it's talking about guns, swords, etc-not hand grenades, shoulder-fired rocket launchers, etc. I would not assume from Scalia's comments that he means that you don't have a right to a gun.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:32 PM
One can carry a grenade, a shoulder fired rocket launcher, an RPG, a bazooka, and a host of other weapons. Are those portable weapons suitable for militia duties? I'd say they are. Are they in common use at this time by our military? I believe so. A cane gun may not be protected as that is not in common use by our military, as one example of something which may fall outside of the protection of the 2nd A.
Becca in TX Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:37 PM
Lars-But whatever is eventually decided about those other items, it is VERY clear that the Constitution protects guns.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:44 PM
Absolutely. I completely agree with that statement, Becca. And I believe it protects full auto guns, such as M16's, despite the NFA of '34. The thought of us citizens freely owning full autos, would scare the puup out of the anti gun crowd. They don't even want us to have semiautomatic rifles and handguns. Some of them would like to see ALL guns banned for civilian use. They'd have to wear "Oops I Puuped My Pants" adult diapers if the NFA of 34 was ever lifted.
Becca in TX Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:49 PM
I agree-I've never shot one, but I think all guns should be legal. I'm okay with restrictions for felons and mental patients, but no more.
Cooperwise Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:56 PM
The discussion is about assault rifles to have the ability to kill as many people as possible, efficiently.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 6:17 PM
NO..it's NOT! You wish it were, but it's NOT. You are blaming behavior on an inanimate object...yet have a curiously uninformed concept of the fact that it is PEOPLE who use such weapons. You either lie in some kind of ethereal 'La-La' land where a law may be passed...and ALL the criminals will immediately comply. MURDER is already against the law; Didn't stop the last few crazies from killing innocents. What you either don't know or are Willingly Ignoring is this; when you make it easier for the predators, you make more predators! Shall we de-horn the antelope? Nasty weapon, those antlers...the poor leopards risk their lives to eat antelope. Let's disarm the PREY?
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 6:17 PM
BTW...Define the term 'assault' weapon.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 10:18 PM
an assault rifle (full auto) or any semiauto that progressives erroneously refer to as "assault weapons" have no ability to kill anyone or anything. A human using one may have the ability. But that has nothing to do with the 2nd A. Well it may not appear that we are on the verge of a revolution to eliminate tyranny at this point, who can guarantee that we'll NEVER be at that point. Law abiding patriots should be trusted to have such firearms in case the STHF at some point we cannot predict in the future. Why doesn't the government trust me? Why should I trust the government when they lie and engage in corruption. I don't do that.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 4:30 AM
"Lars-But whatever is eventually decided about those other items, it is VERY clear that the Constitution protects guns. "

...but also knives, arrows, and by extension ALL "arms," because is says, right there, second one down the list; "ARMS."
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:12 PM
That's very narrow snippet of his majority opinion. When you read the whole thing, in context, you'll come to believe that there's no way Scalia would support a ban on semi automatic rifles and pistols.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:20 PM
Scalia also wrote:"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and ...
Luscious Lars Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 5:25 PM
...tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right." So you see, Scalia is saying that we may have a right to keep and bear even M16's. The interpretation of the full protection of the 2nd Amendment is not completed in the Heller case. Scalia seems to open the door for more definitions as to what types of "arms" are protected. Arms which are not useful for militia duties, nor common at the time, would not seem to be protected. That would probably include nuclear bombs, Aircraft carriers, fighters and bombers and other weapons which would not be useful for militia duties. The definition is not complete.

As I wrote yesterday, Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapons" bill is pretty much dead. Why? Harry Reid won't bring it to the floor for a vote as part of a larger gun control package but has given Feinstein the option to offer the legislation as an amendment. Why? Because he couldn't round up even 40 votes, which means a dozen Democrats (not just those evil Republicans) were planning to vote against it. Reid's move to not bring the legislation to the floor caused CNN's Piers Morgan, who has been using the Sandy Hook tragedy to boost his pathetic ratings, to have...

Related Tags: Michael Moore Piers Morgan