Scalia says you might be good to go with an RPG! (and other Second Amendment interpretations)

Not a campaign quote, but a previously undiscovered transcript of a June 12, 1787, debate on the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention.

It reads as follows:

Jacob Broom (Delaware): Very good, then. We are all agreed that — and I quoteth — "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

​

[The delegates murmur in agreement.]​

​

Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania): Just to clarify, gentlemen — does this right extend to a musket capable of firing 100 musket balls in quick succession without the need to reload?​

​

[The delegation erupts into a bout of hearty laughter.]​

​

Charles Pinckney (South Carolina): Good heavens, Dr. Franklin, are you drunk again?​

​

David Brearley (New Jersey): Such a weapon is quite fantastical, Dr. Franklin.​

​

Rufus King (Massachusetts): Quite fantastical indeed!​

​

Alexander Hamilton (New York): Let us not construct our great and noble Constitution around your cider-fueled hallucinations, Dr. Franklin.​

[The delegation once again erupts into a bout of hearty laughter.]​

​

Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania): My esteemed colleagues, I beg of you, in complete seriousness, what if such a musket were to exist some day long into the future? Would the right of the people to keep and bear arms extend even unto such a weapon?​

​

George Washington (Virginia): Yes, of course it will, Dr. Franklin, thank you for your input. [Makes the "glug glug glug" gesture with his hand as the delegation erupts into a third bout of hearty laughter, its heartiest yet.]​

Oh well, I guess that confirms that even a rational discussion of the right to bear a 100 round magazine for a semi-automatic weapon and 3,000 rounds of ammunition would be counter to the framers intent.

​

 

It is unAmerican to talk about guns as part of the problem.

Guns are part of the solution, goddammit!

 

No, it's UnAmerican to talk about bullshit numbers like 100, 50, 30, 20, 10 and 5. Ya know, the magazine capacity laws of various states that do absolutely nothing to stop crime. As usual, people that know nothing about the physical operation of guns are inclined to blame the guns for crime.

It really sucks that old boy decided to kill a bunch of innocent people. Too bad no amount of laws would have stopped him from accomplishing his goal. You really think something like magazine capacity matters when you're the only dude with a gun in a room full of unarmed people?

"But he bought 6000 rounds of ammo off the Internet! He's a looney!" Big deal, I've bought twice as much and you know where it went? Paper targets for fun on the weekend. Am I crazy for buying in bulk? I hope not, I do it because it's cost effective considering how much buying local can be.

Again, politicians and other talking heads race to the comfort of bullshit gun legislation to show they're "doing something" and "tough on crime."

All they're doing is sticking their heads in the sand and jacking each other off. As per usual.

/threadjack

 

You're making my point for me.

We can have a national dialogue (after the grieving process) on public policy issues following terrorist attacks, hurricanes (and the aftermath), mining disasters and other events that result in loss of many lives.

BUT not mass shootings -- Columbine, Ft Hood, Tucson, Aurora

God (or NRA) forbid we even discuss the relationship between current gun laws and the recurring mass shootings at 10-20X other industrialized nations.

 

Relevant

 

15 out of 50 ---> USA, not including Tucson last year (6 deaths didn't make the list).
--- merged: Jul 23, 2012 6:03 PM ---
Why are gun owners so afraid of having a national dialogue on the public safety and public health policies and practices that impact the 30,000+ gun deaths in the US each year, particularly the most violent acts against the most innocent victims.

Why is the only answer..."no law would stop him " or "if more honest, law abiding people were armed, these deaths could be prevented"

 

You mean like the stimulus program that authorized $1.8 billion/year for the next five years for the COPS program, including $1.25 billion for putting more cops on the street, and the rest for prosecutors, crime-fighting technology and grants to cities for more community-oriented policing programs in high-crime communities, or more funding for early education or after school programs or mental health services or teen job training programs....to address, at least to some degree, the causes, not the outcomes?

But that means bigger deficits and/or higher taxes.

 

Scalia says you might be good to go with an RPG!

SCALIA: Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

 

Protip: Google "Destructive Device Laws."

And quit stealing Bodkin's routine.

 

Justice Google is not on the Court.

 

Hey, don't do that with your mouth open, big guy. You might make an unwanted deposit.

...

Anyway, destructive device laws allow individuals to register things like 20mm rifles and 40mm grenade launchers and their ammunition as well as things like hand grenades. Just like civilians "aren't allowed" to own "assault rifles" or "machine guns," if you're interested in spending the time and money, you can legally buy just about anything. Hell, the Knob Creek shoot is full of perfectly legal stuff that "civilians just shouldn't be able to own."

Wait... why the fuck am I posting in this thread? And why the fuck are you tagging me?

Go bother AceVentura or UsTwo or something, Angus McOld-'n-Crotchy.

You trolled me good.

 

MANPADs and other explosive devices are already heavily regulated, not to mention fully automatic weapons. Hah. Could you imagine? The 'right of the people, to keep and bear MANPADs, shall not be infringed.'

I'll be honest though, Dux. If the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, and to enable the civilian populace to conduct armed insurrection against the government, a la Libya and Syria, MANPADs, and other hardware would be included. It's the Helicopters, Tanks, and Artillery that's totally kicking the Free Syrian Army's ass right now. All the FSA has are....small arms. Pew pew!

 

Kirstang...you're a reasonable gun guy.

Why do think it is so hard to have a rational national conversation on the gun culture and gun violence in the US, at a level unlike any industrialized nation in the world, w/o the "not til you pry it from my cold dead hands" crowd over-reacting and getting all defensive?

 

Dux, wasn't there a study a while back which examined the core-values of people who leaned Right and the people who leaned Left?

The reason, I think, is because both sides' views are based off of fear:

-To the left, it's fear of another mass shooting where a person armed with a rifle and high-capacity magazine mows down rows of fleeing civilians (keep in mind that Columbine occurred during the AWB).

- To the right, it's fear of Government breaking down doors and confiscating guns, or, at minimum, criminalizing an innocent activity (possession of guns).

 

I agree that is part of it.

But it is still bewildering to me that the topic of gun violence is one of those of topics that is taboo.

And, from my perspective, the fault lies more with one side than the other.

 

When you start talking Fault, then you start down the path of shrill shrieking and fear mongering.

 

OK. I'm good with a "no fault" discussion.

How about the fact that the influence of one group representing one side far exceeds the influence of groups on the other side? Does that significant money advantage and ability to mobilize its base not impact the opportunity for a national discussion on the subject?
--- merged: Jul 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM ---
All I'm talking about is how difficult it is to have a national discussion on the subject of how to address gun violence in the US.

I would remove representatives of both extremes from the discussion and have a group of policy experts representing public safety, public health, education, criminal justice, etc. focus on the core causes and practical solutions that wont infringe on the rights of any law-abiding citizens.

Call me biased, but I think the potential pushback from the NRA makes this virtually impossible.

 

Sadly, if you removes the "extremes" from the discussion and solution, you fail to represent those that actually care enough to do something as far as voting, protests, etc. Define "moderate" in this case. You're either for people having access to guns or you're not. Then you've got degrees of restriction, an M.C. Escher house of federal and state laws, and technical definitions made by morons and the shit falls apart. There is no right or wrong answer. "Yeah, just a lot of bodies. Hur!" Meh, the United States started as a gun culture, has always had a strong gun culture and probably always will.

Also, if you remove the "extremes" from, say, the environmental conservation movement, you're left with people that recycle but only when there are readily available receptacles and don't know or care what the numbers mean on the bottom of plastic containers. The only thing worse than an extremist is someone has doesn't have an opinion that comes from solid information and won't bother educating themselves. "I'm far too busy."

Ya know, like 98% of voters in the United States.