What about MY vehicle-held 5rocket launchers! The gun grabbers won't be satisfied until they've confiscated my Katyushas! From my cold, dead, Soviet era trucks will you confiscate them!



(Our last hunting trip - love me some roast pheasant!)

That takes me back...

[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]VAN HELSING PEST CONTROL[/font]
....

Guided systems are critical for bring down flying vampires. They're really quick.

for hunting those various types of small varmints and rodents

Only outlaws will have suitcase nukes.

We need to be able to overthrow the government if we want to, right? Start doling the warheads! First come, first served... and the "no pushing" rule will be STRICTLY enforced.

Should we have the right to tote around hand grenades?

one of the most dangerous man in the country.

Of course it requires paying a $200 fee, submitting a long application complete with your fingerprints and signed off on by your local police chief. Then the FBI conducts a background check and in about 3 months, you get your approval to buy that one specific grenade launcher that was listed on your application.

Same process for machine guns, silencers, and short barrelled rifles/shotguns. Each item is also registered to you.

Wouldn't want to step on your right to own a grenade launcher!

And have been for a long time.

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Bazookas, a hand held rocket launcher, are legal according the the ATF as they are considered to be destructive devices. A Stinger may be classified as a weapon of mass destruction by ATF and thus not legal to own. Hand held grenade launchers and motors are legal to own and one can find them for sale on the internet but they are very expensive.

Here's a grenade launcher for sale for $11,900.00:

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/sagl.html

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)

It's also a $200 dollar fee for every round for something like the m203. Each round has to be registered as a destructive device.

can common sense never be infused into this debate?

If the Second don't cover it, the Tenth reserves it to the people!

If you can't use rocket fireworks on the Fourth of July because of ordinances, surely you can't use handheld rocket lanchers?

Or is the public safety concerns something that Scalia has forgotten is part of his job as a Supreme Court Justice to weigh into his reasoning?

In the town I live in, one can get a ticket for just firing off a gun. It isn't strictly enforced as one can hear a lot of gunfire in town during the 4th of July.

This is sick.

Last edited Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I am a of Cockburn and appreciate the social conscience he brings to bear upon many issues, but that song was admittedly a (musical) low point for him.

-app

In 1985, I was smuggling medical supplies to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. I had heard stories from American nurses about our CIA financed 'freedom fighters' blowing up water treatment plants, schools and clinics in their blind pursuit of capitalism . As I drove, i listened to this song and Dire Straits 'Brothers in Arms' album. A third was Sting's songs about the mothers of the disappeared.
At the time, I considered all of these songs as social commentary about the ongoing slaughter in Central and South America in the quest for corporate expansion. As a military vet, I had been punished by my peers for volunteering to serve my country at what I perceived(wrongly it turned out) to be a threat to Amerika... I was trying to give back and regain my perceived honor.

I'm still offended when the powerful crush the poor just because they can.

Just in case you've forgotten, the savagery unleashed on the population back then has its probable blowback in the rise of the drug cartels IMHO.

They are considered to be destructive devices and as such, must be registered but they are legal to own.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#conversion-kit

Here's a grenade launcher on sale for $11,900.00.

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/sagl.html

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

The right to possess doomsday weapons shall not be infringed...........
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/NRA


(PREV WRONG BUT GOOD LINK FOLLOWS)
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Doomsday_device

It's all the Anti-Constitutionalists ever have... on both sides.

Can you possess and use nuclear weapons under the Second Amendment?

I'd be fine with limiting possession to 16 kilotons (the same wallop as "Little Boy&quot , and under per device.

Possession of more powerful devices (or if more than one, a combined yield of greater than 16k), would
be allowable with certain restrictions (safety course, demonstration of proficiency with range requirement, must be safely stored and not within 1,000' of a school, etc).

a child-proof lock

I would also want a test to demonstrate knowledge of fallout patterns so as to unduly bother the neighbors

We're talking about right to life in a crowded movie theater. What are you talking about?

some think the 2A is limited to the technology of the time. If that is the case the 1A would also be limited to the technology of the time.

So either it is a specious argument or the government can restrict any electronic media to any degree they wish.

It is just silly. The act of reading and writing has not changed because the media is a bit different. One could reasonably argue that real literacy has declined with the "improved" technology.

The act of shooting has changed because it can be done at a much higher rate and greater lethality. The poster is right, none of the founders considered rocket propelled grenades, and may well have had a different opinion had such existed. It could easily be that the 2nd amendment would have been worded differently had such weapons existed.

Believe it or not, the Constitution was the product of men living in the context of their time. It did not come down from a mountain engraved on stone tablets by the finger of God.

communication today is the same as the 18th century??? Why do we call this the information age?
In 1799 if you wanted to tell someone an idea you had to physically speak to them, send a letter that would take days, weeks or more, or write a book or pamphlet and try to get it to your audience.
Here we can be on opposite sides of the world and communicate as if we sat next to each other.

So what changed? The technology.

If you wanted to shoot a gun in 1799 you had to load a musket with powder and ball, then fire it. Today you load a magazine and fire it.

So what changed? The technology.

I don't have to hide my tank and submarine anymore??

Here's a T-72 that can be had for less then $50,000.00. The weapons are deactivated but one doesn't need a cannon to get a parking spot or the right of way.

They don't believe, for example, that "arms" refers only to weapons that were around in the 18th century.

Otherwise, this very blog wouldn't be protected under the First Amendment. Damn, that was easy.

and that just means point it toward the enemy.

He said no such thing as is demonstrated by the transcript in the OP. SC justices are not allowed to say with certainty how they would rule on the subject matter of cases that have not come before the court. That is why they give vague answers in confirmation hearings. That also is what happened here. Criticize Scalia for what his opinions are, you don't have to make things up.

Following me from another thread in which you lied about me to send more bullshit my way? People will say you're in love.

ETA: Lighten up, Francis.

You continue to post things that you have made up.

Ooooh, you'll really hate my tweet on this:

The kids'll love it on Independence Day! (Just watch that molten copper jet - it's nothing to screw around with.)

One of our founding documents!

Has anybody pointed out flamethrowers yet? Man, Imma get me a flamethrower, take it to a knife fight, whoooosh!

join their state National Guard, not strut about town with a pistol perched in their pants.

When we get a couple of more progressive Supreme Court justices over the next few years, the 2nd amendment will go back to being properly interpreted as applying only to state "militias," in our context, the National Guard, again.

There is no Federal constitutional right for any citizen to own a gun. Period.

Let me bring you up to speed:

[font color=red]DC v. HELLER.[/font]

You have the right. I have the right. We have the right.

You're welcome.

Once a progressive majority gets on the court, the misguided Heller ruling will be overturned.




Also, find it interesting you're trumpeting a ruling the majority opinion of which was written by a right-wing asshole like Scalia....

( )

Just don't ask me to think of anything good that Adolf Hitler did with his life, because I can't.

The Second Amendment is here to stay. Not asking you to pick up a gun, just to respect our rights.

Your "right" to strut about town with a pistol perched in your pants, or buy high-powered assault rifles, not so much. Once a progressive majority gets on the court, the 2nd amendment is going to be reinterpreted correctly again. Get used to it.

If we were to shackle the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment in the same way that a lot of people want to see the Second Amendment restrained, you'd scream bloody freakin' murder and have every right to do so.

correctly. Get used to it, because that day is coming.

Honestly, sit back and look at the timescale between US v. Miller and DC v. Heller. How long was the lag time? Decades. Now, if the proverbial day comes, it's going to be way off in the future at the rate things have been going. You may not like it, but think of how long it took for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka to undo "Jim Crow."

This is the progressive reading of the Second Amendment, even if a lot of progressives don't realize it yet. I'm just a little ahead of the curve.

That day is coming. You better get used to it.

I can't decide between Tex-Mex or Chinese. If the day arrives, nourishment will be my friend. Signing out for supper - especially since I never got around to lunch today.

if they felt they needed a Constitutional Amendment to allow the right to join their state militia.
Prior to the 2A, who was allowed to join?

Yeah I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind by the right to keep and bare arms, Scalia.

...such devices, they are legal to own.

But owning and using them are strictly regulated, which is exactly how things should be.

BUT ONLY FOR THE FUCKING MILITIA OF THE LATE 18TH CENTURY.

RETROACTIVELY!

Let me explain... I, much like Arnold Schwartznigger, am morbidly muscular man, and can easily use what would normally be a vehicle mounted minigun or fire a 50 cal repeatedly from the hip. Therefore, by the reasoning given, It is my right to own such things.

My sister, on the other hand, is a delicate petite flower. I doubt she can really carry a hunting rifle without a great struggle. Therefore she does not have any right to anything much larger than a derringer.

Discrimination. Some have less rights than others, based on their physical characteristics.

As Scalia sees it, Americans should be restricted to owning front-loading flintlock muskets and bayonets.

For weapons, he'd change that to what next, tactical nuclear weapons? For what? Hunting quail?