[Perdogg]

I am not making excuses for anybody this is what he said:

from the Hill

The conservative justice described, as he has many times before, his “textual” approach to interpreting the Constitution, which requires that its provisions be read according to their meaning at the time of its drafting. New gun restrictions, he said, would be weighed “very carefully.”

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

[CityCenter]

Thank you.

These comments were part of a larger conversation on how the constitution should be interpretted. Before people react to a headline and throw Scalia under the bus, they ought to actually watch the interview which was highly informative and entertaining. Scalia’s a good guy and a great conservative. There is no reason to think he has abandoned the cause and turned his back on he deeply held beliefs.

[FreedomPoster]

I wonder how he would explain letters of marque.

[Dead Corpse]

Which is patently a lie since owners of ships had cannons. There are also records of private citizens owning carriage guns.

[wastedyears]

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

With that statement, Scalia is as much a constitutional scholar as Obama is.

[muawiyah]

Scalia playing 'the trickster' with that one. He knows as well as anyone that the 'letters of reprisal and marquis', to be understand, necessarily imply private individuals owning the current equivalent of a fully armed battleship or aircraft carrier including nuclear weapons AND a fleet of combat jet fighters on board.,P>The Second Amendment is actually about affirmation of the Huguenot right, carved out in France at the end of the Religious Wars, to not be subjected to the ancient privileges of nobles and commoners (nobles had the privilege, commoners were subject to severe limitations).

The d'Guise faction (Catholic) ~ the majority party, demanded everyone stack arms. The Huguenot faction (Protestant) ~ the minority party, refused ~ and they instantly proved that if you have firearms you have "The power".

The Brits never did quite get into something that revolutionary until maybe the late 19th century, but in America, the Huguenot idea of keeping firearms at home caught on big time! Here Spaniards of every social class had firearms, and then the Dutch, the French, the Scots, etc. as they arrived took up the custom immediately.

The second amendment affirms that commoners can have weapons just like the nobles. The text of the Constitution spells out clearly that everybody has a God given right to have the biggest weapons available!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

Yeah, where does it say that? I'm pretty sure if several men could lift it onto a truck, that is still "bearing arms"

I'd even say driving the truck is bearing arms...or flying the aircraft. Where do I draw the line. you may ask?

Unless you've committed a weapons-crime...I don't.

[Political Junkie Too]

If you read the Federalist Papers debate that I posted in post 69,you will see that the Framers meant the militia to either complement or offset (or even substitute for) the power of the standing army. If the standing army had cannons, the militia would have been expected to have proficiency with cannons, too.

It doesn't read like the Framers intended to limit arms to something less than what the standing army would use, if the militia were meant to be a check against it.

-PJ

[Sarajevo]

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

Really? I never saw that clause in the 2nd A.