Scalia muses over whether citizens ha...

Scalia muses over whether citizens have Constitutional right to rocket launchers

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

Spirit of 1776

Lombard, IL

#1 Aug 22, 2013
The debate over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent "behavior", to use the least pejorative term, usually boils down to whether you think the man has had some sort of episode that has now rendered him not right in the head, or whether one of the nine determiners of What Our Laws Mean These Days has suddenly realized that there is literally nothing anyone can do to remove him from the post and said eff it, letting the freak flag fly high and waggling it around the heads of the rest of us whenever he gets the chance, just because. All right, I admit that was plenty pejorative—but what can you say, when faced with things like this?

In a speech in Montana on Monday, the jurist was asked about the Second Amendment and what arms were protected by that provision of the Constitution. That “remains to be determined,” he replied. As one example, he asked if people have a right to “bear shoulder-fired rocket launchers?” Perhaps they do, Scalia suggested. The answer would turn on the historical understanding of the Framers, who Scalia said included the Second Amendment in part to preserve the right of people to revolt against a tyrannical leader.

Plenty of people have asked the rhetorical question as to whether the most paranoid among us ought to be able to stockpile tanks and grenades and rocket launchers, but it is almost always framed as the obviously ridiculous scenario that nobody but a crackpot would seriously defend. With Scalia, though, you get the distinct feeling that he's contemplating it. Did the Framers intend that any citizen really ought to be able to wander around with a rocket launcher, just in case they felt a government helicopter was infringing upon their daily dose of freedoms? It hinges on the other half of Scalia's pseudo-intellectual fart, on the notion that the purpose of the amendment was not to ensure security, but to encourage revolution. If you claim the intent of the Second Amendment is to assure the right of the people to openly rebel against their government and murder its agents, under whatever nebulous definition of necessary any given group of them might dream up, then obviously muskets would not do; the intent would be to give the maniacs enough weapons not merely to fight, but to win, a possibility that just sent a half-million of them into orgasm just thinking about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mia khalifa 49 min Space ace 1
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr Rshermr 36,345
CNN unreleased footage leak? 3 hr Space ace 1
David duke endorses keith ellison 9 hr Waikiki ripoff 2
President orange caveman 9 hr Waikiki ripoff 4
CIA coup against trump! 10 hr Waikiki ripoff 15
CNN = Fake News 10 hr Waikiki ripoff 53

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages