Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[Ben]

Tommygun - attack the argument, not the person making it. We don't resort to name calling.

Anymore name calling or snark by anyone and the thread will have to be locked.

[Perd Hapley]

It doesn't have to "distinguish" between small arms and artillery.  It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  It is OBVIOUSLY refering to those "arms" which can be kept and borne.

Citation needed. If there is support for this reading, I think we would all like to know about it. Without that, claiming that it is somehow demanded by the language is just fantasy.

[SADShooter]

It (2A) does not read "keep and bear arms on their persons". To bear has other seemingly obvious contemporary contextual applications which would extend beyond individual portability (e.g. horseback, wagons, boats/ships). These would also transition fairly seamlessly to modern parallel technologies.

[Perd Hapley]

The 2A applies to keeping arms and bearing arms. Those are two different things. A plain reading of the text simply doesn't connect keeping with bearing, other than to say that both are protected.

Now if we find that "the right to keep and bear arms" had that peculiar meaning to the Founders, such that keeping is dependent on bearing, that's a different story.

[TommyGunn]

Tommygun's and Scalia's stance: an object can be illegal because the law says its illegal.
Yep, makes perfect sense if you graduated from the school of circular logic.

More ineffable twaddle.  There's nothing "circular" about using the words of the amendment itself to help determine what the amendment means and what types of weapons it covers. 
You might not like the outcome but if you wish to expand the parameter of the second amendment I suggest you do the research and the work needed to do so.
It might be helpful to stop before you allow everyone to acquire nuclear warhead because I don't think I trust fistful with them.

[Perd Hapley]

You might not like the outcome but if you wish to expand the parameter of the second amendment I suggest you do the research and the work needed to do so.

Excellent!  "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."

OK, looks like the people have a right to own and carry weapons, and that shall not be infringed. See? We know what it means now! Howitzers for everybody!

[TommyGunn]

You get to bear them, fistful...............

[brimic]

More ineffable twaddle.:

Fixed your punctuation for you.

[TommyGunn]

Fixed your punctuation for you.

Stick to your own posts smellfungus.

[Perd Hapley]

What's going on now? Did I punctuate that correctly? 

[TommyGunn]

What's going on now? Did I punctuate that correctly? 

[brimic]

What's going on now? Did I punctuate that correctly?

No, your ok.

I just wanted to fix TG's post so that it made more sense, as in:

More ineffable twaddle:  There's nothing "circular" about using the words of the amendment itself to help determine what the amendment means and what types of weapons it covers. 
You might not like the outcome but if you wish to expand the parameter of the second amendment I suggest you do the research and the work needed to do so.

Notice ho changing a . to a : makes more sense?

[seeker_two]

Artillery should be regulated. No honest man needs a howitzer round smaller than a canned ham.

[TommyGunn]

No, your ok.

I just wanted to fix TG's post so that it made more sense, as in:
Notice ho(SIC) changing a . to a : makes more sense?

Brimic if you really want to make snarky remarks by "correcting" my posts you better learn to tidy up YOURS!

[MechAg94]

1.  Explosives are regulated separately from guns and ammo.  Nuclear weapons are not guns.  They are explosives.  How that fits in the 2nd Amendment, I am not sure I know.

2.  Would you say that artillery cannons without eplosive shells are significantly more dangerous than large caliber guns?  Perhaps, but just due to size and range.  IMO, an RPG with a dummy warhead isn't that much more dangerous than a 50 caliber rifle or similar rifle.  It is just scarier to the uninformed. 

[Nick1911]

Stick to your own posts smellfungus.

Tommygun - attack the argument, not the person making it. We don't resort to name calling.

Anymore name calling or snark by anyone and the thread will have to be locked.

You were already warned once about civility in this thread.  Consider this your second. 

You will not be warned again.  Locked.