NRA is protecting gun manufacturers, not the Second Amendmen

Scarborough: NRA is protecting gun manufacturers, not the Second Amendment

Scarborough slammed the NRA for fear-mongering for profits in the wake of the Newtown shooting, which has many calling for gun control.

“Justice Scalia clearly laid out in Heller what Second Amendements were and what they were not. The most Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.”

Instead, Scarborough said, the NRA is protecting themselves and their wealthy gun manufacturers.

This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey, they can’t take your guns away, we’ve got something called the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. Justice Scalia said in 2009 they can’t come and take your guns away, you can have a handgun to protect your family. But after that, they can regulate guns.

If you're a 'survivalist', and you really believe the Federal Government is coming to kill you and your children; if that's your view in 2013, your paranoid, sick, twisted view? Well, fine. Good luck continuing to get the Republicans to jump in your pickup truck and driving off the cliff to political oblivion. That's what's going to happen to Republicans... WAKE UP!"

God, I love it when a conservative tells the GOTP just how screwed up they are...

What's that? He's a "RINO"? :rofllol Yeah, okay....

Trotting out your favorite token Republican from MSNBC again? Look what happened to Pat Buchannon when he didn't toe the MSNBC line, fired.

What part of "rights shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of "The Second Amendment is not absolute" (Scalia) don't YOU understand?

Last couple decisions from the Supremes affirmed the 2nd Amendment.

Going up against the most powerful military? Didn't the colonists do that to Britian with only muskets in 1776?

Lexington and Concord? It was a British attempt to disarm colonists. And how well did that go for them? Well trained, well "regulated" infantrymen against farmers with household weapons.

It did not affirm "absolute power" of the Second Amendment, and you know it. The quote from Scalia has already been posted. If you don't like it, that's not my problem.

So you finally show some respect for Scalia, but only because you agree with him this time?

Gee, good deflection... So you DON"T pay any attention or respect to Scalia because it proves what your saying is wrong?

Just because they are Supremes doesn't make them right all the time, they screwed up Dred Scott, and while I am pro-abortion, their justification for Roe V. Wade was very weak too.

FredHayek wrote: Going up against the most powerful military? Didn't the colonists do that to Britian (sic) with only muskets in 1776?

Lexington and Concord? It was a British attempt to disarm colonists. And how well did that go for them? Well trained, well "regulated" infantrymen against farmers with household weapons.

From what I read, the British Army had muskets as well. Each side used muskets. What do you think the British had?