This is a discussion on Scalia "Open" To Gun Control? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by 10thmtn So - I guess the 2A protects our right to have our very own thermonuclear device? How about your own private ...
No nomex required ;-p. Just a lively disagreement.
IMO, libel/slander, in and of itself, is in no way in conflict with the 1A. Just as the holding a person responsible for murderous actions isn't in conflict with the 2A, irrespective of what the murderer used ... tank, firearm or his right thumb.
Whatever one's philosophical bent, it's hard to claim mere possession or carrying inflicts material harm on anyone, irrespective of the tool/device.
How do you explain the fact that the Federal Government during those times did not even attempt to regulate cannons that were owned by individuals? Arms does not mean hand held armament. The term arms covers all weapons. When the early Americans were asked to take up arms against their then government they were not referring to dueling pistols. The meant to arm yourself with every available weapon.Originally Posted by Closet_Rambo
The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
A selective aim able device that can be specifically targeted to one spot and not harm any other persons nearby.
so semi auto ... yes
Radioactive Material Smuggled Across Border | www.kfoxtv.com
You would think something would've happened by now. There are many areas of the world that are completely lawless, including parts of nuclear-armed Pakistan. It's amazing we haven't gotten nuked yet. Again, whether or not we can have nukes is a red herring argument that is used by those who wish to restrict us by leaping to the most absurd scenarios they can think of to justify something much smaller in scale, like telling you you're not allowed to have a machine gun. The entire debate shows a complete lack of respect and understanding for property rights in general, and a disregard for the concept of negative liberty. The premise behind restrictions of any activity that does not harm others is the opposite of civilization, and should be rejected as such.
We need to look at the reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to keep and bear arms. From all I have heard over the years it was so that the people could defend themselves from a tyrannical government (at that time England). Given that we should be able to have whatever arms necessary to accomplish that. Someone mentioned in a post that we should have at least the weapons available to basic infantry. Sounds fair but we may also need a bit more.
I firmly believe that when the founding fathers stated "shall not be infringed" that it was in the literal sense. Not surprising that Scalia is wrong when he said "..........the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
That would include all hand held weapons would it not? A non menacing weapon is probably not very effective.including menacing hand-held weapons
The Second Amendment is in place and it says what it says specifically so as to ensure the citizens access to the same weapons that the standing Army has. This is so, if the need arises, and I think it will one day, for the citizenry to over throw a government that has become tyrannical, the citizens would be on equal footing with the Army should the Army chose to side with the tyrannical government. (NOT England. We had already defeated England when the US Constitution was ratified. The Founders specifically had our own governement in mind when the Second Amendment was written.)
Rea in the strictest possible way, every citizen should be able to have a full auto M4, or a tank with its ammo, or an Apache Attack Helicopter or a naval war ship if they so choose. Now, some of those may seem absurd. But, the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, means what it says and says what it means. It is written very plainly and quite clearly. Shall not be infringed means, the government has no say in what you own or carry or store in your home. Period.
It's only because we have slowly rolled over and taken it from the government for so long that we feel it's "OK" for there to be "reasonable gun control". All "reasonable gun control" is, is us, letting them infringe on a right that is spelled out in the Constitution. One that they are specifically forbidden from infringing upon in any way, shape or form.
I find it interesting that he said the following in reference to Chief Justice Roberts opinion on Obamacare:
"There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."
But he feels there is room to regard "shall not be infringed" as "we'll see...it will have to be decided."
If you ask me...enemies of freedom like this guy have got to go.
I think its helpful to read or listen to the full conversation. Not everything is covered by the constitution and its left up to the democratically elected legislature to make these rules. The argument that people should have attack helicopters, grenade launchers, and tanks is ridiculous. As Justice Scalia said, there were even restrictions back then, and nothing is absolute, not even free speech. So everyone is asking where do we draw the line then? It's up to the people and the state legislatures....subject to the right to bear arms cannont be taken away, but restricted. I know this won't be popular here, but we do restrict fellons from having weapons.
WALLACE: Let's turn to an issue that is the news right now with the massacre in Colorado. And that is gun control.
You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms?
SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.
So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where --
WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute, SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.
WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you're a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.
He also said, the constitution does not protect against wiretapping and the right to privacy..
WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965?
SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.
WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was.
SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was -- that was wrong. In the earlier case, the court had said the opposite. Look, the way the Fourth Amendment reads that people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
And the first time my court had a case involving wiretapping. It said that's not covered by the Fourth Amendment. There can be state laws against it and most states had laws. But it's not persons, houses, papers and affects is not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed that, I don't know, 20 years later or so in a wave of non-originalism. Constitution means what it ought to mean. Well, it simply doesn't cover that, which means that it's left to -- it's left to democratic choice, as most things are, even important things like abortion.
WALLACE: When you say democratic, that's small d meaning let the legislature decide.
SCALIA: Exactly. Exactly. Even the important questions and not just insignificant stuff, but even important questions like abortion.
I don't see a problem with what he said. There are limitations on all of the amendments. The worry is that the anti's will try to take it too far so that we cannot reasonably defend ourselves against tyranny if such a time comes.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand