Scalia Accidentally Makes The Case For Strict Gun Lawson July 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm
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:
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.