During an interview yesterday with Chris Wallace, Scalia tried to thread the needle by claiming that we have to obey the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time of its inception but somehow make room for modern advancements that make that original understanding irrelevant. He paid particular attention to the phrase “keep and bear” meaning that if you could carry it around, it’s possibly constitutional to own. Addictinginfo made the following point about just how moronic that interpretation is:
By his measurements of standards, home ownership of the “Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon”, the Javelin anti-tank weapon and the M-28 Davy Crockett nuclear tipped recoilless rifle would all be fine.
Yes, you read that right. A nuclear weapon would fit in Scalia’s definition as to what is constitutionally protected for individual ownership. A product of the 1950′s nuclear arms race, the Davy Crockett was a field deployed tactical nuclear weapon. It is man-portable, unlike the cannon he feels would not pass constitutional muster. It sports the W-54 nuclear warhead, weighing 26kg, and has an explosive yield of which is 12x more powerful than the Oklahoma City bomb placed by Timothy McVeigh.
Delightful. But the best part of Scalia’s insistence of “original intent” is that the Second Amendment, according to the right, was meant to arm the populace to prevent a tyrannical government from “taking over.” That means ownership of guns for hunting and home defense is not covered. That means hunting is not covered. That means antique weapons like musket rifles are not covered. Why? You do not wage war with those kinds of weapons. Oh sure you could take down, if you’re lucky, a soldier wearing body armor with those weapons but probably not. You need tanks and bazookas to really take on the military!
And that’s the entire point that Scalia was kind enough to make: a shoulder mounted rocket launcher certainly passes constitutional muster as far as the Second Amendment goes but, of course, we don’t allow civilians to have those because they pose too much of a potential threat to society. Meanwhile, assault rifles pose more than a potential threat, they pose an imminent threat. There is a 100% probability that there will more than a dozen occasions every year that someone will take their assault rifle or their pistols with extended clips and kill multiple people. The argument that we need assault rifles is preposterous because, without tanks and rocket launchers of our own, we are incapable of stopping the military. It defies all common sense that we “need” weapons of mass murder when the reason we claim to need them is worthless.
Scalia, in his bumbling attempt to defend the indefensible by hiding behind the constitution reveals just how intellectually bankrupt the right’s gun proliferation arguments really are.
To “keep and bear arms” does NOT automatically include the weapons that you described. THAT is fear mongering and exageration in it’s worst form. You’re as bad as the folks you’re trying to slam. (I’m no fan of SCOTUS as they’ve been bought too)
Saying that recreational weapons are useless against modern military tech is a terrible argument to make against the private ownership of firearms. First off, as we’ve seen in Libya and Syria, the military itself would become split up by dissent among the ranks, resulting in sabotaged/commandeered equipment to compliment any justifiable rebellion by a tyrannical government. Second off, any firearm can be effective against soldiers in full gear without the requirement of luck. This is because the 5.56 used by NATO and the .223 Remington chambered by a wide variety of sporting rifles are near identical, and the rifles tend to achieve higher muzzle velocity (And thus penetrating power) due to chamber design while Assault Rifles favor firing rate at the expense of muzzle velocity via gas-operated reloading designs. In other words, a hunting rifle has a better chance of defeating body armor than assault rifles do.
Yet, even armed with better weapons, no one has successfully held off even the ATF or SWAT and the Army/Marines are far better armed and trained. The point is that those are not weapons of war.
Fear mongering and attacking the “right to bear arms” is the one thing which might stop President Obama from being re-elected. I am a life-long Republican and I support President Obama. I am a retired law enforcement officer too. I believe the has to be a reasonable approach and attitude toward any form of gun control.
Semi-auto? Yes.
Full-auto – Not without a long and complete process and renewal.
Recoilless rifles? Artillery? Rocket Launchers? – No!
But, DO NOT, get the president tangled up in this morass as an election issue. Let him continue to talk positive and be an above-board gentleman. “Don’t go to the playground to fight the bully” because that is what the RNC wants.
Unfortunately, the NRA will oppose even the most common sense legislation that limits guns in any way. Common sense would dictate that assault weapons need to be restricted to law enforcement. Clips for rifles should not exceed maybe 8-10 rounds max. It should take at least a minute to replace the clip so even if someone uses such a rifle, there would be time to counterattack the maniacs who set out to kill people for insane reasons. Armor piercing, and hollow point rounds should be banned for civilian use. But nothing will happen, mark my words. Our representatives have no will or spine to buck the NRA lobby. No wonder they have an 18% approval rating.