Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Think conservatives are always pro-Second Amendment?. Think again. If it's not the U.N. out to disarm Americans, it's the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Guns only have two enemies. Rust and politicians"

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-g ... d-20120729

From a conservative judge no less!

All the more why we need to keep the pressure on at all times and never allow the kind of garbage a gun grabber would propose.....

VBshooter wrote:All the more why we need to keep the pressure on at all times and never allow the kind of garbage a gun grabber would propose.....

What pressure can you put on a SCOTUS member? They can hide their beliefes until confirmed, and then theres absolutely nothing one can do about them. No elections, no one to answer to, and its for life.

Kreutz wrote:

VBshooter wrote:All the more why we need to keep the pressure on at all times and never allow the kind of garbage a gun grabber would propose.....

What pressure can you put on a SCOTUS member? They can hide their beliefes until confirmed, and then theres absolutely nothing one can do about them. No elections, no one to answer to, and its for life.

I would think he's referring to keeping the pressure on the legislative branch so trials concerning gun control never get to the SCOTUS where you don't know what could happen. Like they tell you before your first fight in the UFC, always go for the knockout or tapout. Never leave it in the judges hands.

Way to go Shotgun!!

Of course, there's also the fact that Scalia's right.

We agree to all kinds of restrictions, like background checks, no citizen ownership of certain weapons (e.g., WMDs at the extreme end) and justly so. There are obviously limits on 2nd Amendment rights just as there are to each and every other Constitutional right. Where we start arguing is where those limits are good and just and where those limits are simply government attempts to monopolize power over the governed.

We can try to read between the lines here and see what sort of regulations Scalia meant, but until I see the entire interview (and maybe not even then), I'm not rushing to condemn him.

Jamie wrote:
We agree to all kinds of restrictions, like background checks, no citizen ownership of certain weapons (e.g., WMDs at the extreme end) and justly so.

No, actually, I don't agree with all of these restrictions. (although, I'm inclined to agree with the whole WMD thing) As far as I'm concerned, if one cannot be trusted with with weapons, and virtually any weapon that he so chooses, he has no business walking amongst free men. If he cannot be trusted with guns, he also can't be trusted with automobiles, knives, baseball bats, anything combustible, anything that holds water, rope, yarn, belts, heavy objects, pillows, screwdrivers, or nearly any other common household object.

2A--The right to keep and bear arms.

When the Constitution was written, what were arms? The means to defend oneself and wage war ( sword, saber, knife, firearm, pike, bow, hatchet, etc.) The 2A is not just about firearms, making restrictions on any "weapons" unconstitutional.

OakRidgeStars wrote:Think conservatives are always pro-Second Amendment?

I don't think I've ever thought that, at least since I figured out what conservatism is really about. (Cue Chesterton quote.)

Yeah, I recant on the background checks, although I'm still leaning toward mental health screening (with heavy scepticism about how far the guvmint can be trusted to do so impartially).

Jamie wrote:, although I'm still leaning toward mental health screening (with heavy scepticism about how far the guvmint can be trusted to do so impartially).

Exactly!!! It seems as if every time we give the government a tool, they eventually use it as a weapon against freedom.

Sensai wrote:

Jamie wrote:, although I'm still leaning toward mental health screening (with heavy scepticism about how far the guvmint can be trusted to do so impartially).

Exactly!!! It seems as if every time we give the government a tool, they eventually use it as a weapon against freedom.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One could argue that to deprive someone of his Second Amendment rights because he has engaged in the past in a criminal act or has exhibited behavior some mental health professional deemed unstable or abnormal (query what the HELL "abnormal" means to some of THOSE people) is no different from imposing restriction upon what black people can do because there is a higher crime rate among black people. True, in the first case you are talking about the behavior of the same individual who is restricted, and in the second you are restricting one individual based upon the behavior of others who merely share the same skin color; but we've discussed a WORSE case on this forum just last week. I'm talking about the female NRA member who was accosted and searched because of the NRA sticker on her car. It is a worse case because there is NO factual basis for concluding that NRA members are less law-abiding. So there is one damn good example of how a so-called "reasonable regulation" can become the instrument of oppression in the hands of the state.

With Obama care I would bet you will be getting a free psychological evaluation every time you walk into a Doctor's office. What's the easiest was to control firearms? Through medical fiat. They've already mandated that a doctor must ask you if you own any firearms and that's being done today. Don't be surprised if a medical records check becomes part of a background check in the future if we don't get rid of this monstrosity.

(sigh) At this point? Can we just start over? Seriously?

The Justice is not the first conservative gun control advocate.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

Ronald Reagan 3/28/91

Damned textbook "common sense" anti-gun liberals!

Kreutz wrote:The Justice is not the first conservative gun control advocate.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

Ronald Reagan 3/28/91

Damned textbook "common sense" anti-gun liberals!

Hold on there partner, you shouldn't post something like that here. People have a strong love for their guns. They also have a strong love for their beloved conservative Ronald Reagan. Posting a quote like that is like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. Who knows what undesired consequences there will be!!

ShotgunBlast wrote:Hold on there partner, you shouldn't post something like that here. People have a strong love for their guns. They also have a strong love for their beloved conservative Ronald Reagan. Posting a quote like that is like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. Who knows what undesired consequences there will be!!

The great thing is for every one "conservative" thing Reagan is lauded for saying or doing there is the reality of what he said or did to utterly dispel any notion he was anything but a typical politician (aka liar).

The myth was far more conservative than the man, from guns, to taxes, to abortion, to illegal amnesty/immigration, he wouldn't have lasted today.

Agreed. Why, the man didn't even go to church.

One think to note about this article is he often respondes that "It will have to be decided" this answer is so that he will not have to later recuse himself.