Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

2nd "Unlimited"


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Quote

“The Second Amendment really predates the Bill of Rights,” Scalise said. “Our Founding Fathers believed strongly in gun rights for citizens. Frankly, they thought it was an assumed right. They didn’t put it in the Constitution because they didn’t think it would ever be in jeopardy, but ultimately, you saw attempts later on to take away gun rights, so they said it’s so important, we’re going to make it one of the ten bill of rights constitutional changes.”

When Todd pressed on him whether the Second Amendment was unlimited, he said yes. He argued that limits on the books should simply be enforced. No new gun control regulations should be created.

 

 

Scalise says pretty much what SCOTUS has said, and all the good little antis are frothing at the mouth with comments such as 'Well, I'm gonna buy a NOOOOKKKKKK! How about that?" and "I'm gonna go out and buy a tank and RPGs! That'll show you!" and similar idiocies.

Somehow they think that the 2nd gives them license to kill wantonly at their whim. They then project their own violent nocturnal fantasies of slaughtering people -well, Trump supporters and conservatives whom they don't consider people - onto gun owners, saying that gun owners dream about killing people at random.

 

They are unable to comprehend responsibility, self-control, self-discipline, and that if you harm others you will not be able to shelter behind the 2nd by saying it gives you the right to kill.  Not unlike the supposed limits on the 1st that Schenck (1919) imposed. Schenck did not limit anything, it just said that some speech, because the intent is to harm others, is not protected: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

 

If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a public place and causing death, injury, and panic. It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”

 

https://lawnewz.com/…/shooting-victim-steve-scalise-says-2…/

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/…/scalise-second-amendment-unl…

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.