This is supposedly a conservative justice, folks. He's a traitor to the Constitution. Read thoroughly and adjust your shopping list accordingly.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-gu....

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

By John Aloysius Farrell
Updated: July 29, 2012 | 11:41 a.m.
July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

If you think your vote doesn't count...

If you think Scalia is not conservative enough we could just as easily get another liberal Puerto Rican bitch.

Yes, the Republicans will save us...they'll appoint a 'conservative' judge or two to the USSC! Yippee!

traitor nothing more nothing less

Voting has/will accomplished nothing.

They've - all - got - to - go.

Or, WE can leave. But where to go? They've about fenced the whole dang corral.

Who is John Galt?

One of the anti-gun interpretations of the 2nd A. is that it's intent is to arm citizens under the direction of the gov't who would regulate us as a 'Militia."

And what type of weapons would we use as a "Regulated Militia?" Ones that are capable of competing on the battlefield of the day. Certainly NOT 18th century muskets, right?

But now that the SCOTUS has stated that the 2nd A. applies to us a private citizens the anti-gunners have no desire to see Americans possessing modern small arms weapons and want an interpretation that ensures that the gov't has fire superiority over its citizens.

Quote:

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

I'm curious about these limitations...was there a limit to the number of cannons your personal warship was allowed to have?

@ Mpilar:

Personally, I like the limitations the Declaration of Independence put on the nature of a despotic/Fascist government that had to be borne by the People:

Quote:

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

Think we got our long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object.

Agreed!

You've made me think though...since our entire Constitution and DoI was about LIMITING our government, not the people...maybe the piece of **** in black was talking about limits placed on the gov to have certain arms...not the people? ;)

Funny how the Colorado massacre happened right in the midst of this heated debate.

Not sure of which debate you're talking about. Obama and the other socialists were very quiet about the 2nd prior to CO happening...

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does this ******* of a traitor not understand?

You want to limit the types of weapons I can possess, more than you already do now, Uncle Cheese? Anyone in their right mind would call that infringement.

Just wait, this is just the first ripple in what will soon be a tsunami of fascism. The following ruling will be the next casualty:

Quote:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia

Scalia sad as much himself today... hilarious, since he was played a key role in this ruling.

Mpiler, I was referring to the UN small arms treaty that has been pretty hotly debated on the net for the past month or so.

Got to Scalia too?

Oh, you guys haven't seen this yet huh?

Good News: apparently the U.S. can't sign a gun trafficking treaty because it itself engages in covert arms trafficking, as a national policy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c....

It's not like the "Conservative" 2ed amendment ruling meant anything. I still can't bear arms in CA, nor can people bear arms in Chicago, DC, ect. It's like the supreme rulings only mater when they make progressive rulings.

Quote:

"Good News: apparently the U.S. can't sign a gun trafficking treaty because it itself engages in covert arms trafficking, as a national policy."

Enforcement is for the little people.

There will be no major gun control. This is just a scare tactic orchestrated by the gun manufactures to increase sales. The politicians will posture to appease the left only. Perhaps pass some timed ban of a short list of headline grabbing items. As for a complete gun ban, this will never happen. With our standing army overseas fighting endless wars, The United States cannot afford to disarm the public. We are a reserve army that arms itself. The more they fear monger, the larger and stronger we get. Just look at gun sales after stories like this hit the main stream media. They have soared every time without exception.

Now I don’t have the numbers but it is easy to see, There was a time you could buy a gun out of the Sears catalog, without any regulations. Now there are literally thousands of regulations. Yet gun sales are increasing every day. If the plan was to decrease the number of guns the citizens have it is failing miserably. However if the plan is to increase the number of guns the citizens have, it is a remarkable success.

I'm a bit confused and suspicious about this interview.

First of all, Scalia (or any of them for that matter) rarely gives interviews. Secondly, Scalia has been probably the biggest defender of 2A on the SCOTUS ever since he's been there. He's written some amazingly thoughtful opinions on the matter.

He's also one of the most well-read Justices when it comes to actual documented history. (He often cites the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers as well as private writings of the FFs.)

I'm just not sure that his words mean what the media thinks they mean or perhaps he said what he did for another purpose altogether. Certainly strange he picked now to give an interview, not to mention speak on this topic. Let's just say, I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

All the King's horses, and all the King's Men.
Couldn't put back together the Supreme Law of the Land.
Mostly because they want to write their own law that didn't effect them.

Scalia's interview...



He says that the second amendment limits what could be carried aka no cannons... eh Scalia, BULL****.

People had private held CANNONS back then and it was all legal. Source : 1776 from David McCullough.

Right, so the "treaty" must be signed between the big boys and they have the power to play the same game the U.S. does. If the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty even after signing it, then the other signatories can effectively ignore it also.

Big boys can counter other big boys' moves.

And hopefully this is what will fracture the power structure. Infighting at the top as they start ripping each other off when the fresh meat little people are used up. I'd like to see what happens to people like Bernie Madoff who rip off Mexican or Russian Mafia.

Quote:

He says that the second amendment limits what could be carried aka no cannons... eh Scalia, BULL****.

Yes. Thank you.

He's opening the door on a case which is clearly closed, and has been for several years now.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", you overfed, pasty traitor ****.

It's a conversation I had with a co-worker today who "served" in Viet-Nam. I found out later this afternoon - after spending two years living with his bragging - that his total time of service in Viet-Nam was measured in minutes. Exposed - not shot, just exposed to - enemy fire, and the VA, and you and I, have paid his way ever since. You should hear the "hero" stories this guy has to tell, probably collected from real people who actually did it.

Anyway, was talking about this earlier and he piped up and said people have no business with 100 round drum mags. I told him that if I want to shoot off and empty every single one at my disposal, tie the drums together and use them as a raft to get to Sigapore, that's my damn right.

It looks like Scalia has had somewhat of an about face on 2A. I can only think that something or someone "got to" him. Probably the threat of "tanks in the streets" and "tens or hundreds of thousands dead" is what did it. It worked on the Reps and Sens during the financial crisis.