Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Wayne LaPierre a Ranting Lunatic. With so many on the right, will anyone notice?

I hope the NRA's drooling blood soaked spokesman Wayne LaPierre continues to make his case to Americans, who will finally understand what we've been up against for years, and why things are only getting worse.

Here's a great panel reacting to LaPierre's most recent rant about "absolutism." It appears the NRA wants to be the leader in an armed insurrection, coming soon, matching fire power with fire power. Oh, and they want to sell, sell, sell guns. LaPierre wants Americans to act and be more like the criminal class, as bizarre as that sounds. And why isn't he arguing for the return of machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Why are they banned?

And while we're at it, this case has been all but ignored here in Wisconsin. A 21 year old bought an AK-47 to kill his friend. He's got mental problems, but not the kind that will keep a gun out of his hands. Will Scott Walker's meeting dealing with gun violence deal with the extraordinary case below? I doubt it. WKOW:

Words to have meaning, like Justice Scalia's big time activist decision to broadly read the Second Amendment in a way that is crazy. Yet LaPierre should look at the "words," and understand how "absolute" those words are about sensible regulations.
Alabama: "Words do have meaning, Mr. President. And those meanings are absolute, especially when it comes to our Bill of Rights."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation … Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms. "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ..." Scalia wrote that the opinion was not in conflict with bans on gun ownership for convicted felons or the mentally ill. He also did not argue against restrictions on gun-carrying in places like schools and government buildings.

Scalia's opinion also includes language that may help those who want restrictions on assault rifles and magazines that can hold large numbers of bullets. The justice wrote that the opinion should not be seen as casting doubt on "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (The court's 1939 Miller case) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

No comments:

Post a Comment