Thread: U.S. Issues The "bearing arms" debate...
View Single Post
Old 01-11-2013, 08:13 PM   #94
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $8835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker View Post
So, Justice Scalia.


He says - and I actually tend to agree with him on this point - that the use of the word bear means that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons which can be carried, so there go your cannons, your missile launcher, your nuclear warheads.
That's regarding the word "bear." The Amendment reads "keep and bear arms"—not just the word bear. We discussed "keep" earlier.
No one can carry around a cannon obviously.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Quote:
He continues by pointing out the obvious next argument, which is "What about rocket launchers"? He doesn't give a direct answer to that, but he does say that the benchmark would be "What limitations are within the understood limitation that the society had at the time?" As the society at the time has no hand-held missile launchers, automatic weapons, flamethrowers, or bazookas, and they had only the most primitive of hand grenades, I feel comfortable with the level of strictness (or outright illegality) we have on these weapons.
If that's his logic, then typewriters, phones, cell phone texts, computers were also limited by society at that time relegating the First Amendment to writing on parchment with a turkey feather.

Quote:
The logical conclusion is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow the average citizen access to any and every weapon in the military arsenal, then or now. The entirety of the gun debate is arguing where to draw the line between allowable, and too much.
I already said I disagreed that his conclusion or yours is logical, but I was finishing up with cosmos and didn't have time to look at your whole post but did now. ( I posted the points on whether he is a strict or originalist constructionist or not additionally in a separate post.)

Where, I'd say it is not absolute or has any limits is at the state level without bans, because I think incorporation of the 14th doesn't apply under originalist construction. The idea of having a BoRs came from the states. Yes, I know the SC clarified Heller later by incorporating.
__________________
Posts: 57,513
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote