Justice Stephens: confused or willfully ignorant?

[A-R]

US Supreme Court Justice Stephens confuses "automatic weapons" with "assault weapons" and thinks you have constitutional right to cell phones but not firearms

“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” the Ford nominee said, incorrectly lumping together semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which already are highly regulated.

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/ ... -election/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

US Supreme Court Justice Stephens confuses "automatic weapons" with "assault weapons" and thinks you have constitutional right to cell phones but not firearms

“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” the Ford nominee said, incorrectly lumping together semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which already are highly regulated.

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/ ... -election/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe I have a constitutional protection against ignorant idiots appointed to positions of power, otherwise known as tyrants.

Anygunanywhere

[i8godzilla]

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

What good is 911? Someone should tell him that his Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement has no duty to protect it's citizens.

[AEA]

That's what happens when you have Lib Judges with Alzheimers arguing topics they know nothing about.

[Jim Beaux]

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

What good is 911? Someone should tell him that his Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement has no duty to protect it's citizens.

Betcha by time the police arrives even the dumbest could have figured out how to use that "gun their not used to using".
I totally loath libs.

[HankB]

Just be glad that, at 92, he's retired.

[JALLEN]

Justice Stephens is retired and no longer has a vote, but his statement seems to closely reflect existing case law. There are regulations about the ownership and possession of automatic weapons, which are not seriously challenged or regarded as unconstitutional. I don't think he is right about the weapons used in the killings he refers to, or at least not in the sense he uses the terms.

My 10/22 is called semi-automatic, one shot per trigger pull, but my P226 Navy and similar pistols are often referred to as automatic pistols, even though they fire one round per trigger pull, exactly the same, and are more accurately classed as semi-automatic.

[EconDoc]

Just remember that "gun control" has never really been about crime reduction and public safety. The entire history of restrictions on private ownership and use of arms that one person can afford and use has been one of making the world safe to tyrants to expoit and mistreat their serfs and slaves. This history pre-dates firearms and goes back to such things as "sword control" in Shogunate Japan and medieval Europe.

I cringe when somebody mentions atomic weapons in connection with gun control debates. That is just a straw man argument. Who has the money or facilities to fabricate an atomic weapon, or a B1 bomber, or an Apache gunship? When the gun ban folks bring up atomic weapons, it is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters with irrelevancies because of the substantive differences between atomic weapons, on one hand, and handguns, rifles, and shotguns on the other hand. Please don't fall for that straw man tactic of bringing up atomic bombs, tanks, and other stuff in connection with this issue.

[recaffeination]

Senile?

[AEA]

Yes.......Senile and ignorant.