Ammo For Sale

« « Credit | Home | Eventful morning » »

OMG THERE WILL BE GUN LAWS

So, the talk radio, blogs and press are all gaga over Scalia saying that guns may be regulated. Yes, they can be. They are now. That’s not going to change. There will be gun laws. But, with recent events, I’m guessing those laws will continue to be more favorable to gun owners. There’s a whole lot being said over so little. Now, what is interesting is he intimated that rocket launchers may not be regulated since they’re handheld. Cannons, not so much since they are not handheld. Which is funny because in current federal law, it’s the other way around.

22 Responses to “OMG THERE WILL BE GUN LAWS”

  1. Tam Says:

    I want to see more of those Costitutional Originalist gun regulations. Like the one where you had to bring your rifle and basic ammo loadout to church every Sunday for inspection. ;)

  2. blounttruth Says:

    What is not funny is the fact that Bill Oreilly now supports a national database and is pushing it, and Savage has joined the choir singing the leftist song of pro gun control measures. I wonder if the talking heads turning their neo con leftist agenda to reality will finally wake the people? I doubt it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hl9fsbg1rsQ

    and

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BSHP8XMt_ts

    and

    http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/07/24/some-conservatives-favor-assault-weapons-ban/

  3. Kristopher Says:

    +1 Tam.

    Everyone should be required to own an M-4 with loadout, or pay a cowardice tax for not doing so.

  4. Kristopher Says:

    And since it is a state militia weapon, it should just be assigned to a resident, without any of this BATFE Form 10 bullshit.

  5. Tam Says:

    blounttruth,

    What is not funny is the fact that Bill Oreilly now supports a national database and is pushing it

    Now? Now?

    Where you been? Bill O’Reilly’s always been a pro-gun control metrocon. Every time somebody stubs their toe on a gun rack he’s screeching for assault weapons bans and regulations.

    Screw him.

    The sooner people learn that “On FOX” doesn’t mean “on our side”, the better.

  6. HL Says:

    The sooner people learn that “On FOX” doesn’t mean “on our side”, the better.

    Are you sure? I have been told that Faux News is extremely right wing, just like all Pro-Gun whackos, and that I should only pay attention to more responsible and moderate sources, like MSNBC and CNN.

    I am also confused that someone didn’t take Holmes’ guns away from him during the shooting and use them against him, because I have been told that is what happens when you carry, especially openly.

  7. Kevin Baker Says:

    Now, what is interesting is he intimated that rocket launchers maybe be regulated since they’re handheld. Cannons, not so much since they are not handheld.

    Err, no. “The amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It’s keep and bear, so it doesn’t apply to cannon….” The amendment protects arms that can be carried, not those that cannot. Thus shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles might be arguably protected, but Scalia suggests that they might be legally excepted under the “frighting” restriction or something similar. That might be the reasoning supporting the “destructive device” NFA restriction, if it ever gets argued in court.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    d’oh. left out a word.

  9. blounttruth Says:

    Tam,
    I do now recall him supporting the disarming of Americans when he interviewed Stuart Rhodes:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYkkgIkHbI

    “The sooner people learn that “On FOX” doesn’t mean “on our side”, the better.”
    It is so nice to converse with the awakened.

  10. Tam Says:

    HL,

    I am also confused that someone didn’t take Holmes’ guns away from him during the shooting and use them against him, because I have been told that is what happens when you carry, especially openly.

    I wish I wrote that. :D

  11. Jay Dee Says:

    The whole concept of man portable arms could be interesting. Check out the Royal Navy Field Gun competition videos on YouTube.

  12. GomeznSA Says:

    I’ll pose the same question to the ‘honorable’ justice that I posed on another site: if momma whacks poppa upside the head with a frying pan, has it become a ‘menacing hand held weapon’???
    As has been proven over and over again, the creeps that do mass shootings (and the ones that do individual ones) DO NOT obey the current laws, how on earth can anyone with a modicum of common sense believe that making something ‘more’ illegal will somehow magically or mystically suddenly stop them. PFM perhaps?

  13. Huck Says:

    Exactly GomeznSA. There’s been laws against murder for a lot longer than there’s been gun control laws and the penalty has always been much more severe. Yet that has’nt prevented whackos that want to wade in blood from doing so. But the same whacko who’s willing to ignore the law against murder will comply with gun carry/posession laws?

  14. comatus Says:

    “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.” Scalia’s no real scholar, or he’d have seen this one coming. Trying to parse “bear” exempts Trojan horses.

    Will he say that you must walk to the range? He’s all hung up in his higher thinking here. Very confused man.

  15. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Actually, this isn’t quite a New Thing. Didn’t Alito put something into DC vs Heller about localities having the Right to Regulate Firearms? So, I.E., until I hear someone on SCOTUS say on Air “What part of Shall NOT be Infringed don’t you understand?”, I really don’t consider any of the Supremes to be “Pro-Gun.”

    Oh, Kristopher, BTW, instead of an M4, would it be all right with you if some of us used a DMR in 7.62 Nato instead? ; )

  16. Ron W Says:

    I thought Sclia was an “originalist”. The 2nd Amendment is directed to the federal government and it says “shall not be infringed”; strong, direct language that restricts the federal government from any legal restrictions on the armed citizenry.

    If one reads Article I, Section 8.15-16, according to the rules of English grammar, the “delegated powers” of the federal government, beyond which it has NO POWER to act, only allows it to govern “such part of the militia which is called into its service and EMPLOYED.” Therefore it is quite clear according to the words of the Constitution that ALL Federal gun laws are UNLAWFUL except those which apply only to its employees.

  17. Paul Says:

    75mm recoilless rifle IS HAND HELD!! (90mm is to heavy.)

    I want one!

  18. Kristopher Says:

    Keven: That little fracas at Lexington was started because a Mr John Hancock bought a pair of cannons as a gift to his friend in the town militia. The Redcoats were sent to seize them.

    ( the Brits didn’t get them, by the way, as the owner buried them in a cornfield the night before )

  19. Kristopher Says:

    Bubblehead: You’ll need to pay for the M240 out of yer own pocket, dammit.

    At $100 a pop, M-16 receivers will be expensive enough right now.

  20. NAME REDACTED Says:

    @Ron: correct the federal government has no power to regulate arms, beyond those held by the active military.

  21. Jeff from DC Says:

    I just wish you guys would give up all your guns so I could stop being on strike already. Thanks for nothing, Bloomberg.

  22. Ron W Says:

    Let Bloomberg go first and lead by example.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives