Justice Antonin Scalia: Rocket Launchers included in 2nd Amendment.

[longsuffering]

This is outrageous.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/329613

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opined that citizens may have the constitutional right to own handheld rocket launchers.
The Raw story reports that Scalia appeared on "Fox News Sunday," where host Chris Wallace asked the conservative justice how far the constitutional right to bear arms extended.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

This is outrageous.

What is it that makes you enraged?

[Reaper]

Imagine. A homeowner defending his property against an intruder whips out a bazooka. The intruder runs and the homeowner deploys a bazooka round, misses the intruder and destroys the home across the street.

[SeeBass]

Well you have the right to a rocket launcher but not the ammo

[Huntingwhale]

To be fair, Bazookas are cool. Who wouldn't want one? God bless America.

[mykalberta]

2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.

American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).

Yes, some of this is taken to the extremes with gun ownership. But most people against the 2nd amendment dont even think someone should be able to own a handgun so extremes exist on both fronts.

Americans fought for their freedoms, they didnt negotiate them, I dont think anyone south of the border expects Canadians to understand.

[Puppet Guy]

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

But most people against the 2nd amendment dont even think someone should be able to own a handgun so extremes exist on both fronts.

Private handgun ownership banishment is hardly the extreme... that would be rifle banishment.

Scalia is loonie, when I saw his name appearing as part of a thread on the forum index I was hoping that when I opened the forum the name would be followed by "annouces his retirement".

[Rathji]

I thought I responded to this thread, but it appears I forgot to hit submit.

If the point of bearing arms is to allow the American population the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, then why wouldn't consideration also be given to allow weapons that might be able to defeat some of the weapons that government might wield against them?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

What is it that makes you enraged?

Isn't it obvious?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.

American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).

Yes, some of this is taken to the extremes with gun ownership. But most people against the 2nd amendment dont even think someone should be able to own a handgun so extremes exist on both fronts.

Americans fought for their freedoms, they didnt negotiate them, I dont think anyone south of the border expects Canadians to understand.

Is this kinda like when when black people talk about their ancestors being slaves generations ago so we should give them a little bit of leeway when they call oppresion/racism?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I thought I responded to this thread, but it appears I forgot to hit submit.

If the point of bearing arms is to allow the American population the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, then why wouldn't consideration also be given to allow weapons that might be able to defeat some of the weapons that government might wield against them?

Should private individuals have the right to own SAMs, attack helicopters, tanks, and fighter jets, then? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.

American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).

I would not be comfortable as an American until citizens are allowed to own nuclear weapons, secret stashes of chemical and biological weapons and the means to distribute said weapons.

Right now they do not have enough guns and weaponry in the States to actually fulfill the intention of the second amendment. Give the people access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. There is not a gun in the world that can overthrow a tyrannical regime that has those weapons.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Is this kinda like when when black people talk about their ancestors being slaves generations ago so we should give them a little bit of leeway when they call oppresion/racism?

Are you saying racism doesn't exist? And also the civil rights movement was 50 years ago so it wasn't that long ago they were treated as second class citizens.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.

American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).

Yes, some of this is taken to the extremes with gun ownership. But most people against the 2nd amendment dont even think someone should be able to own a handgun so extremes exist on both fronts.

Americans fought for their freedoms, they didnt negotiate them, I dont think anyone south of the border expects Canadians to understand.

They have a right to a well regulated MILITIA as a check against a tyrannical government...

...This amendment came from a totally different context and era and has been totally perverted.

..Also, the amount of weaponry needed to balance out the US Armed forces would be ridiculous...rocket launchers would barely be a start if that is what you were trying to accomplish..

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Imagine. A homeowner defending his property against an intruder whips out a bazooka. The intruder runs and the homeowner deploys a bazooka round, misses the intruder and destroys the home across the street.

That would be a crime - careless use.

I think they're arguing you can own the thing but using it carelessly - as judged by society - is not a right.

Two different things.

Cowperson

[trumpethead]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That would be a crime - careless use.

I think they're arguing you can own the thing but using it carelessly - as judged by society - is not a right.

Two different things.

Cowperson

So you can own a bazooka, so long as you use it "carefully, cautiously and thoughtfully"? But I still cant go through airport security with a bottle of water.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by trumpethead

So you can own a bazooka, so long as you use it "carefully, cautiously and thoughtfully"? But I still cant go through airport security with a bottle of water.

Or your shoes

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Or your shoes

Or a snow globe, the most dangerous weapon of all.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Or a snow globe, the most dangerous weapon of all.

If anyone was ever going to overthrow the gov't, somehow I don't think a snowglobe would do it.

Although I'm sure the TSA (for good reason) thinks it'd be the first part of the gov't to go.