Comments on: Scalia Says Rocket Launchers Are Protected Under the Second Amendment

By: Jack Davis

Jack Davis — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:05:43 +0000

You’re right, the headline is misleading. But his true position is still completely insane–rocket launchers may or may not be protected. Even the NRA has never argued anything this preposterous.

What do you think? 0 0

By: WTF1113

WTF1113 — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:38:48 +0000

I’ve got to agree with you there, Rick. As much as I dislike Scalia’s politics and constitutional interpretations, he makes it quite clear that he would weigh the issue of rocket launchers carefully.

What do you think? 0 0

By: 1voice1vote

1voice1vote — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:30:24 +0000

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia on Fox talking hand held rocket launchers as a Constitutional right…

Oh, goodie, we can look forward to that Roberts court’s ruling. The mentally unstable will be able to kill copious quantities of humans from blocks away, cos it says so right in the constitution. Will the NRA be dumping their stock in body armor manufacturers (no need for mass murderers to purchase that bulky and expensive gear)?

What do you think? 0 0

By: Paws

Paws — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:29:53 +0000

Yes and he also said he doesn’t think the right to privacy is inherent in the Constitution.

Take him God, he’s ready.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Rick Shreiner

Rick Shreiner — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:13:14 +0000

It really is amazing that a guy with Scalia’s education can’t see simple facts. The 2nd Amendment says, “the right to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It could just as easily be interpreted that the 2nd Amendment relates that neither the right to KEEP arms, or to bear them shall be infringed.
Nowhere is it implied that arms MUST be BOTH “kept” and “borne” for them to be protected by the 2nd Amendment. I don’t have to “keep” arms to maintain the right to bear them. If I borrow one from my neighbor, I am not “keeping” arms, but this does not affect my right to bear them.
Just as I have the right to keep arms without bearing them, I also have the right to bear them, without keeping them.

Which means, according to Scalia’s logic, a fully armed Cobra attack helicopter must be as equally protected as a deer rifle, since both are arms.

What do you think? 0 0