Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
I have discussed the Second Amendment and the difficulties I have in allowing citizens to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity clips of ammunition in the past, but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a recent Fox News interview, just took my concern over semi-automatic weapons and shot it down.. with a shoulder firing rocket!
“Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”:
WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.” Think Progress
OK. I get it now. Under Justice Scalia’s originalist reading of the Constitution, he might not allow you to carry a big Axe around to frighten people, but a shoulder firing rocket launcher might be legal! At what point do we decide that public safety just might trump a radical reading of the Constitution? This is the same justice that opined in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that reasonable restrictions to the Second Amendment might be allowed by the Court. Heller
Maybe Justice Scalia needs to see the photos of the carnage a semi-automatic weapon or a shoulder fired rocket launcher can create. Under this thinking, RPG’s might be legal for all citizens to own and carry. Grenades can be hand-held and therefore under Justice Scalia’s warped sense of thinking, they too might be legal for citizens to carry. Do we draw the limit at briefcase nukes that can be carried in one’s hand?
Obviously the theory that Justice Scalia is promoting can be carried to extreme and hilarious lengths. The real scary part is that Justice Scalia doesn’t understand how hilarious and dangerous his concepts are in the real world. I am also confused why Scalia is allowed by Chief Justice Roberts to go on Fox News and opine about issues that just may end up in front of the Supreme Court. Isn’t this interview evidence that Justice Scalia has already made up his mind on the issue of other portable weapons?
What do you think of these comments by Justice Scalia and does his concept of originalism go too far? Since Justice Scalia thinks that these kind of weapons may be legal, is it too far-fetched to wonder if the current crop of right-wing Militia’s are free to purchase these kind of weapons, even if they hope to use them against the government?
Additional Reference: Prof. Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago
Jim,
You are fooling yourself. The CBO has declared tat the ACA will reduce the deficit over ten years and your wild claim that it will put hospitals out of business is unsupported by the facts, like most of your last posting. Show some evidence instead of just making claims. The ACA will provide 30-40 million new Paying customers, not charity cases.
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6405
NBC wants to make war games an entertainment show.
Jim funny how you ignore the reoublkican obstructionism in job creation as well as refusal to end the bush tax cuts which has cost the treasury trippions of dollars which would certainly help the deficit if it had been collected. Of course a pres nominee who says it is a pres contenders duty to pay the least taxes possible is a wonderful role model for the country, an embodiment of patriotism.
“The market is not back, just wait and I will be able to prove my point.’ No Jim, the market is up, now and has been under President. Obama’s care. You can parrot repub, tea party, maybe limbaugh and Beck toob but a lie reoeated, no matter how much you and the repubs want, does not become truth just because you want it to be.
leejcaroll
Thanks for your comments however let me correct your mistakes.
With our current population growth rate it is not about having positive job growth but rather creating enough jobs to keep up with the rate and Obama is way below what we need. Harry Reed ( Democrat Majority Leader in the Senate) refuses to vote on the House’s budget for 3 years now. Recession is not over. Last week’s GDP numbers prove that. The stock market is not back. Wait until October and you will see my point. Remember this comment and bring it back up in 3 months.
5Trillion in debt in 3 1/2 years and projected 10 trillion more in 10 years under Obama’s policies is not success. Th ACA is going to put hospitals out of business. Just ask yourself how long you could stay in the hamburger business if you were required to provide the burger whether the customer could pay or not and 3 million new people just moved to town.
Jim,
You just make this sh*t up and keep slinging it. All of your statements thus far are false, but you just ignore the proof and sling out more sh*t. With all that though is that you’re ignoring your original premise that a President needs business experience, because by your own heroes that is wrong. If you lack the moral compass to even admit your errors, then what’s the point of trying to discuss anything with you? That is indeed the prmoblem with many conservatives such yourself, money trumps morality and cenrtainly love of ones country.
BTW Jim, I know someone who went through a very terrible time. At one point they thought seriously about getting a gun but luckily it was something that passed. Registration and difficulty of getting one was what stopped him. Had he been able to get one willy nilly I truly believe he could have harmed someone,
No one knows if Holmes had had difficulty obtaining the weapons and ammo if the outcome would have been different. Just not getting an automatic could have helped reduce the carnage.
Jim, There has been 27 straght months of job creation despite Boehner and the republicans refusal to pass a jobs bill. You want to call stock market back, auto industry back, recession over , Iraq war ended, bin laden gone, and more a failure. thats okay you repubs dont have a clue what the word success or failure means or you would call Romney a failure, look at his record in Mass., and Obama a success.
Mike Spindell
No, loosening banking standards was Barney Frank’s doing. Also, I blame people for being stupid and not reading their contracts. Getting an ARM was stupid and so was home equity loans. People should have read their contracts. Don’t blame anybody for your own problem,
Obama has amassed more debt in 3 1/2 years than Bush did in 8 years. That is a fact.
Romney’s unemployment rate was 4%. What else would you want? That always gets left out of the left’s talking points.
I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and stop making excuses for their problem. If you loose your job and can’t pay your mortgage then you move out into something you can afford. You get rid of your cell phone and all other electronic devices, turn off the air conditioner and get a fan, don’t go out to eat, etc. In other words get rid of everything that is not necessary. You also don’t try and get a job that pays the same wage for 99 weeks. You take whatever job is available and keep working until a better opportunity comes along. That way when you go to sleep at night you can feel good about what you did and not what someone else did for you.
rafflaw
Taxes have been lower because so many are out of work.
Jim,
You may want to double check your facts on the tax issue. Taxes have actually been lowered during Obama’s tenure. He has requested an increase of the tax rates above $250,000, but that has not been accepted as of yet.
Bob,Esq
What bad has the Patriot Act done and don’t forget to mention the good.
Mike Spindell
My only comment about lack of business experience was due to high unemployment. Obama only wants regulation and high taxes not to mention a country that mirrors the socialist tenants of Europe. That mindset only leads to more debt and America’s demise.
Jim,
Once again you produce talking points, rather than truth. Unemployment rose due to the banking scandal that came about because the Bush Administration refused to exercise oversight on the large banks that played games with the mortgage market and then proceeded to aid those banks, but not the people most hurt by the banking industry. You also conveniently forget that the unnecessary Bush tax cuts cost us one trillion$ in debt. Also your amnesia about two unneeded wars raise the national debt another two trillion$ and that was before Obama took office. Also too, both Bush and Cheney did have the
experience of being “businessmen” before they took office. That there is no logic to your arguments is simply because you cannot make logical arguments, but only repeat talking points you’ve heard.
Now I would still like your answer on why the two Presidents conservatives consider the greatest Presidents of the twentieth century had no business experience and yet you think that it is important now? The answer is of course that the only thing Mitt Romney has going for him is his claim of business experience, since as Governor of Massachusetts he presided over a failing economy, rising joblessness and instituted health care reform which most Republicans today call “socialist”.
The thing is Jim, you root for politics like a fan roots for a football team. It is all about “winning” and hating your opponents. The trouble is that in our system of government it is incumbent upon each of us to do their patriotic duty and find the facts/truth behind the propaganda, so that we are informed voters. You are demonstrating that you are failing in your patriotic duty and not only that, but you are really rooting for socialism……for the rich.
Malisha 1, July 29, 2012 at 11:56 pm
“If they kill my dog, they’re going to be dead. And I don’t even have a dog” — Well, maybe they DID kill him, then. 🙁
=================
I don’t have a dog, and I would shoot them if they shot my dog. Ruby Ridge.
I don’t really see anything wrong in using the Aurora shooting as a “springboard for legislation.” Indeed, half the legislation we get is a result of some legislator viewing some event as a problem and trying to design a legislative solution so that the problem will be dealt with going forward. The committees hold hearings where they call in witnesses who have had this or that problem that illustrates the alleged need for the legislation. So victims of mass shootings would testify in support of some bill that would deal with that problem — nothing improper about it. Whether the legislation is “panic-driven” or not has a lot to do with how fast and how emotionally and how [without true debate]-ly the backers of the bill are. In the case of the post-9/11 legislation that stripped citizens of their civil rights, the legislation was passed in a panic deliberately whipped up in order to pass it. In fact, the naming of the patriot act “The Patriot Act” was an example of the worst kind of propaganda in that it made it seem like any opposition to it was unpatriotic! That was panic plus a public shaming for anyone who would even wait long enough to enter into genuine debate!
“Here we are being killed and threatened and HE DOESN’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP US!” was the characterization of any opponent of the legislation that swept up the national conscience and threw it in the trash.
So we “use” events to point us toward legislation. If it’s about time we considered the legislation, that’s not such a bad thing. What if we had NO heathcare bill and there was a serious pandemic that weakened the whole country and threatened the GNP? Would that be reason to deal with it? Or should we wait until the panic dies down?
Bob,
When does the statute of limitations run out on a mass killing so that we can discuss legislation that may save lives? Has the statute run on Columbine which happened in 1999?, or the shooting of a sitting Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords in January, 2011? 5 or 6 were killed there and about 18 shot in total. I could go on and on. The Virginia Tech killings, the NIU killings, etc. Mother Jones adds up 56 mass killings in the last 30 years. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
So when can Americans finally discuss legislation to deter and maybe prevent so many sad killings without you considering that it is panic driven legislation? If we don’t start discussing the problem, then nothing will get done. When you have a Supreme Court Justice who at one point wrote in the Heller case that reasonable restrictions could pass constitutional muster, is now stating rocket launchers may be ok, shouldn’t sane and reasonable discussion on an old problem be had before he gets the chance to vote yes on allowing military weapons in the hands of anyone?
Rafflaw: “If someone has a will to kill, then he/she should be prevented from purchasing weapons of this type and ammo in this quantity. If it prevents one mass killing, and is not over reaching, then it is worth it. The proper legislation would not prevent the normal person from legally buying these weapons and ammo.”
I agree. I just don’t agree that using the tragedy in Colorado as a springboard for legislation is proper. The Patriot Act was the product of just such panic-driven legislation.
continued: repeated the lie that running a hedge fund like Bain Capital makes someone a businessman, when all it does is create money, not products. As for the Olympics, he had unlimited funds and the full support of the LDS, which ensured its success. I’m still waiting to hear how Reagan and Ike could be great Presidents without business experience. Do you have any insights to offer other than parroting false talking points?
Mike Spindell
You said,
Oh Yeah, Mitt Romney’s business experience: buying companies, leveraging their debt, outsourcing jobs and sending them into bankruptcy
That is a lie. Most of the companies were already heading to bankruptcy and Romney turned some around, fixed up others for as long as they could go, and others broke apart and shipped overseas to protect those who had money invested in them. That is a good thing and shows that he is good at what he does. He fixed the Olympics and again shows he is good at what he does.
Let’s see. Obama has added 5 trillion to our debt, has broken his promise about deficits, unemployment is still above 8%, and worse if his policies are enacted fully our debt will be about 25 trillion in 10 years. He can’t blame Republicans because he had both houses of congress for two years and he can’t hide that fact.
Jim,
I notice that you didn’t respond to my main argument. What you did was parrot the Romney talking points you’ve been spoon fed and repeated the lie thaqt runn
For one thing, it does look like the deterioration in Holmes’ mental state could have been a fairly rapid and unexpected thing, certainly not a long, drawn-out, recognizable process that doctors, neighbors and family would have been able to detect. If he had to buy small quantities of ammunition at a time, and had to go through a more deliberate process to arm himself to the teeth, he might have had time to show the world that he was coming unglued, and perhaps a person or two (or a doctor or a teacher or a landlord or neighbor or two) could have seen something obvious enough to react to. As it was, for him to be able to get 50 packages in a little over a month, and to put together this kind of carnage without any real obstacle, IS inevitably a part of the problem we need to address as a culture.
Everybody wants to blame a psychiatrist for this crime. WHY? If it takes no time at all to buy weapons of mass destruction, how much time would it take for a psychiatrist (seeing someone at most an hour per week) to figure out that there might be danger coming? Should she have magically SEEN IT IN HIS EYES? Should she have presumed it because he had anger issues? Should she have gone farther than any hospital emergency room would go if someone presented in an agitated mental state? Resources are hard to come by and hard to judge; guns should be harder to get than mental health services.
Jim,
I think you are confusing the popular vote in Florida when Elaine and I were discussing the national popular vote totals. And you recall is not correct even on the Florida totals. Not to mention the the scrubbing of the voter rolls by the Florida GOP prior to the election.
Bob,
I disagree with you completely. My reasoning is sound. Just because someone could have used other means to do his/her killing is not excuse for reasonable protective restrictions. This kind of killing is unfortunately no longer unique as you suggest. The idea that reasonable restrictions to help prevent a deranged shooter killing scores is similar to the over reaching privacy restrictions in the Patriot Act is also not viable. Even when you put it in bold letters. Even the writer that you linked to said the following “Postscript: I do support wholeheartedly certain reasonable gun restrictions — steps designed to reduce our nation’s overall rate of firearms violence. Still, murder in its most extreme form, as in the Colorado shooting, is particularly difficult to prevent through gun regulations, or other strategies, for that matter. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try nonetheless.”
If someone has a will to kill, then he/she should be prevented from purchasing weapons of this type and ammo in this quantity. If it prevents one mass killing, and is not over reaching, then it is worth it. The proper legislation would not prevent the normal person from legally buying these weapons and ammo.