Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by pipedreams, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Better hope the pro-RKBA justices stay healthy. Barry has his picks ready.
  2. Syclone538


    Jan 8, 2006
    Last edited: May 15, 2013

  3. hogship

    hogship It's MY Island

    Man, I hope like hell you are right!

    I'm so used to having government people do exactly what I never thought they would do, that I guess I just have learned to expect the worst, and hope for the best.

    Your thoughts do make quite a bit of "horse sense", and if that's Scalia's plans, he will gain back some respect he lost with Obamacare decision.


    Note: The more I think about it, the more I'm totally amazed that Elana Kagan has actually gone hunting with Scalia. I had her pegged as someone who wishes a total disarming of the American public.......this can't be a bad thing. I'm sure Scalia is working on her to support constitutional rights, and that can't be a bad thing either. Any change in Kagan's gun philosophy can't get any worse, and can only get better.

    Very good on Scalia.......:wavey:

  4. The Machinist

    The Machinist No Compromise

    Sep 20, 2009
    The Left Coast
    Hypocrisy is a core tenet of liberalism. There are plenty of left-wingers who shoot guns, who would love to ban AR-15s, regardless. She may have personally a hunting trip, but as a progressive, her overriding goal in all things is to cement the power of the government over the citizenry.
  5. We use both the M-16 and M-4. Neither shoot fully automatic. It fires semi-automatic or it fires a 3-rd burst. The changes were made a while back. The major reason for the change to burst, versus full auto, was due to inaccuracies in the full auto mode and ammo consumption. We do have a fully automatic weapon in squads- the M249 SAW. We also have the crew served M-240B, which replaced the M-60 machine gun.
  6. Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
  7. Multi-round burst fire is considered fully automatic by BATFE. "More than one round with a single trigger pull" is the criteria. May be urban legend, but I've heard of people getting in serious trouble when their semi-automatic malfunctioned and fired multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
  8. hogship

    hogship It's MY Island

    I think you're confusing the issue with word definitions, and applications.

    Obamacare was passed, and it was the law when the SCOTUS ruled on it. It was not fully implemented, and still isn't......

  9. Edge

    Edge Millennium Member

    Jan 4, 1999
    scalia is very strong on 2nd amendment. i'm sure he was trying to convert kegan. lots of good discussion of judicial cases at illinoiscarry. guru and others trying to get cases before scotus before obama has a chance to flip court. this court is solidly 4-4 with kenedy as tie breaker who ruled in favor of 2nd on heller and mcdonald.
  10. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Jul 12, 2007
    You need standing to get in front of the court, have to be adversely affected to have standing, hard to imagine how you'd be adversely affected by something that has not taken effect yet. Maybe I'm oversimplifying or don't understand that aspect of the law.

  11. Fear Night

    Fear Night NRA Life Member

    Dec 18, 2005
    Sweet Home Alabama
    I have heard Scalia mention in an interview soon after the Heller case that the 2A allows for arms up to what a modern ground infantry soldier would be issued. This is why things like Stinger missiles, mounted machine guns, landmines, tanks, etc. are still reasonable restrictions.

    Would that mean the NFA could get overturned, or at least modified? I highly doubt we will be able to get selective fire but if they go down the ground infantry route they will have to address this issue.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  12. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    I have to ask why your owning a tank is any more dangerous to anyone than your owning an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, or a Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine, or a single-shot Mossberg .22, for that matter?

    Would owning a tank suddenly turn on an 'evil' switch in you?

    Do we accept that some military weapons simply provide too much temptation to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

    Is it OK to ban tank ownership by civilians outright?

    Why? Because the potential for destruction is so much higher? Like the potential of an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, as compared to a semi-automatic 'hunting' rifle with a 5-round magazine?
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  13. Goods questions, I've never seen answered on GT or anywhere. Do you know the answers?

    Should civilians have anything they can afford to buy? I'd trust you to have hand grenades, for example. But I'd have concern if a criminal stole them from you, and then sold them to other more dangerous criminals.

    When I say "concern", I don't mean laws, so I'm not jumping to conclusions.

    Would criminals use hand grenades for mayhem? I don't know.

    Or maybe they wouldn't be any more dangerous than guns. I don't know.

    Either way, I'd first prefer keeping violent felons locked up in jail .

    I joined the NRA, have you yet?
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  14. Slug71


    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
    We should be writing and pressuring Scalia too.
  15. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Oct 1, 2001
    north of the equator

    You are both 100% correct. :thumbsup:
  16. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Oct 1, 2001
    north of the equator
    It had been passed into law.