6 votes

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)


From Lew Rockwell:
July 29, 2012

Cheneyite Antonin Scalia

"The state-worshipping judgester announces that more gun control is coming. I've long thought that the totalitarian state, if it comes to America, will be Republican. Romney is a gun controller, too, of course."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What part of...

"shall not be infringed" does this nin-con-poop not understand?

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

That is exactly my thought.

Dictionary definition of infringe: — vb
1. ( tr ) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. ( intr; foll by on or upon ) to encroach or trespass

The right to defend one's self is a basic right that comes from nature or God, depending on your understanding of the origin of rights. The right to life and the right to defend one's life are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable.

It is so strange to me that people in government would want to deprive us of the right to protect our very lives with the best tool possible. Of course the reason is that they want to take our lives or at least the wealth we might have accumulated in the pursuit of our lives and don't want us to be able to protect ourselves against their aggression against us. Plunder and control is the game of government no matter what advertising slogan they use to hide that fact (Protect and serve is a popular slogan they use to deceive us).

The pretense of protecting society is just a scam excuse sold to weak, frightened, brainwashed minds.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

The MSM seems to be conflating both groups of gun owners.

The one group is motivated to protect lives and property from infringement. These individuals are protected under the Constitution.

The other group is motivated to take lives and property. When this group acts in that manner they are violating the Constitution and common law. If one commits a crime then due process is applied in a timely fashion, not before.

People are afraid of criminals, it is natural.

Guns are tools. I keep a couple of iron clubs and a small sledge hammer handy. People are comfortable with different defensive tools.

Free includes debt-free!

Let`s collect all of our guns and send them down to Mexico.

If you check the statics a very large percentage of the shootings here in this country are committed by illegal,legal resident aliens, nationalized citizens from other countries and visa customers of the US state department.Your Government imports crime on a daily basis.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Do you have the statistics?

Do you have the statistics?

There should be only 3 factors when it comes ...

to purchasing any weapon, including a nuclear device. (Or any product for that matter)

1. A contract that includes consideration.
2. A willing supplier.
3. A buyer that is truly free.


As to number 2, we all know where these weapons originate from, yet no one in govt talks about 'them'- the unabated sellers/manufacturers - the MIC,; their blameless. Free-enterprise, wink, wink.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

He is absolutely correct in his statement that "person(s)" have

limits upon them with regards to the 2nd Amendment and their Right to Carry, as I posted here:


He did not say 'man or woman', he said "person(s)"

Two totally different things :)

Repeal the 17th, 16th and 14th amendment.

In the mean time becoming a a citizen whose rights are protected by the government created by the Constitution, seems prudent.

Those who fail to uphold the Constitution break their oath of office. Their opinion is null and void. At one time the statutes specified public hanging for this treason.

I think one of them could take over Irwin Shiff's room at Terre Houte. A privately funded billboard identifying the Judge who failed to uphold his oath of office might be appropriate.

Maybe they could identify his cell and sell spoiled vegetables to tourists.

I take a dim view of government infringing on my rights.

Free includes debt-free!

WOW. In the second video, Scalia

completely contradicts himself when Wallace asks: How political is the court?

Scalia: Oh, uh, I don't think the court is political at all.
Wallace: Says nothing. Zero. Nada.

[so I looked up politics and politician in wikipedia and wikinary. Hey, guess what? If the Supreme Court is part of the 'State's power, or authority', and it obviously is; and politics is the relationship between the people and the State, then by definition...]

So, Scalia gets to regurgitate the manual blaming politicians for their appointments of judges who subscribed to them philosophically.

Scalia: "How do you think we got Roe v Wade?"
[I'm thinking: Same way we got GWB in 2004?]

Short story shorter, Scalia says it's a judge's philosophy that directs his decisions. Never once did he mention their oath to the Constitution.


"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

That's Just Great

He is power hungry and senile.

He is right.

You are all slaves and your master, the small gang of thugs that calls itself the government, can do to you what ever the hell they wants, including taking away your tools for self defense.

I believe very strongly in

I believe very strongly in the 2nd amendment, but how can anyone say that there shouldn't at least be SOME limits to it? Should people actually be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

Only if that's in the SWAT Team's arsenal when they invade

your home at midnight. Or in anyone's arsenal who invades your environment where ever you may be.

But I agree with NCforPaul, nukes are mutually destructive.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

I generally interpret it this way:

"Keep and bear arms..." I consider that to include basically any man-portable weapon, up to and including rocket launchers. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to defend themselves against their own government and foreign governments, so while rifles and machine guns are all well and good, they're utterly useless against tanks and aircraft.

Nukes, on the other hand, are not only *not* man-portable, but they are designed to be used against civilians. Even if used against a government, the civilian "collateral damage" is vast, taking away any justification. Same goes for biological/chemical weapons.

Another Turncoat...

However, the truth is Scalia was never a conservative. He goes way back with Michael Chertoff and Talmudic Law and Noachide Law...the basis of the New World Order.


Scalia Studies Talmud with Lubavitch Rabbi

Submitted by Fester on Sun, 2010-05-02 03:29

The Sanhedrin is officially reopened for business and Fat Tony is down with it. It just keeps getting worse. From the Maurice Pinay Blog.

"Conservative Catholic" Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Studies Talmud with Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

"Conservative Catholics" and "trads," here's your "guy on the inside:" a Talmud student of the Chabad Lubavitcher and Nasi of the recently formed Sanhedrin of "Israel," Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

On the Road with Rabbi Steinsaltz: 25 Years of Pre-Dawn Car Trips, Mind-Blowing Encounters, and Inspiring Conversations with a Man of Wisdom
by Arthur Kurzweil

... inspiring tales of the great Rabbi as he gives Talmud classes to Senator Pat Moynihan, Yitzhak Perlman and Justice Antony Scalia, lectures Ministers of the Chinese Government ...


... has studied Talmud with Yitzchak Perlman as well as a group in Washington including the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Justice Antonin Scalia and Sen. Joseph Lieberman ...


Justice Antonin Scalia, Mr. Steinsaltz said, "There was something very wrong about one of us - we seemed to agree about so many things." A Catholic Supreme Court justice and an Orthodox rabbi and Talmudic authority found much in common.


Scalia's comrade, Nathan Lewin says Scalia believes that Talmudic training gives one a head start in U.S. jurisprudence:

"Give a man a gun, and he could rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he could rob the world."

Once more

Another example of why the most advocated argument towards conservatives for voting Romney, that we need more conservative judges, is false and will not work. The Supreme Court will never roll back any powers, nor allow for any constitutional legislation to pass. Of course, constitutional legislation will never come before the court, at least with the current clowns in office, as they have never seen legislation giving more power to government that they do not like.

They are NOT clowns!

They ARE criminals!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~


Who just so happen to be clowns as well. I suppose I am being rude to clowns for lumping them with the Justices of the Supreme Court. If anyone is a clown out there, I sincerely apoligize for comparing you to these criminals.

I can't remember the whole quote nor who said it,

but they said the majority of Congressmen have attached themselves to a falling star. They are too irrelevant to be noticed by the real stars and too - whatever - to figure out the rising stars.

They're unapologetic losers, clowns. Dangerous, but still clowns and they do not deserve our respect or re-election.

Not like a professional clown anyway.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina