I heard it. Nothing out of the ordinary for an originalist such as Scalia. He is historically accurate and was talking in a broad way about what the words of the second amendment mean. There is nothing in the second amendment ( or the first for that matter) that is absolutist. This is much ado about nothing. Moreover, it is typical of the left to try and put a wedge between conservatives. No need to feed the hype
“Moreover, it is typical of the left to try and put a wedge between conservatives. No need to feed the hype”
_______
The interview I saw was on Fox/Chirs Wallace and I thought there was nothing to it. Down the line conservative. If there was anything “liberal” about the interview, it was Wallace who refused to discuss Scalia’s new book, although that was why he had granted an interview.
I think you are avoiding the bigger picture here. Scalia just handed the libs a club, and they are going to use to great effect for the next 20 plus years. Scalia must be about to retire, so he’s worried about all of the nasty books that are going to be written about him. Even if he believes what he is saying, why say it? Unless you have jumped ship and now believe all of the liberal hype that something MUST be done?
First: "Congress shall make no law..."
Second: "...shall not be infringed."
Sounds pretty absolute to me. I guess the only way they could have made their point stronger would be to prescribe summary hanging for anyone violating these rights.
Maybe we should do that next time...
"The People have the right to obtain and carry weapons and ammunition. Anyone who hinders the exercise of that right, physically, or by regulation, or by taxation shall upon detection be hanged by the neck until dead from the nearest available horizontal structure."
Agreed on all points.
STOP making sense! You keep doing that, you’ll get yourself in trouble.