Gun Rights: A Stinger for Antonin

[Jacobtm]

YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles.

 
CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. 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 there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.
Most gun-rights advocates will probably downplay Mr Scalia's remarks, but I applaud them. In fact, I think the only thing amiss here is Mr Scalia's weirdly literalist approach to the word "bear"; the first amendment's reference to "freedom of speech and of the press", for example, is generally held to apply to non-verbal communications as well. Besides, even though you can't carry an M1 Abrams battle tank, that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from "keeping" one. More important, though, Mr Scalia seems to be one of the few people in the judiciary who may be favourably disposed towards letting Americans own the only kinds of weapons that actually make sense, under the dominant justification that advocates currently provide for the importance of gun rights: the right to defend yourself against the government.

There are basically two ways of explaining why a right to own guns belongs in the Bill of Rights. The first is that it's part of the assumed natural right to self-defence against other citizens. The second, increasingly the main line of argument by gun-rights advocates, is that's it's necessary to prevent governments from arrogating tyrannical powers to themselves.

(See rest of article at link below--Badger)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights

[Vosem]

I'm far too lazy to read the entire thing, but from just the first paragraph I would have to say I agree with Scalia.

[Simfan34]

The idea that guns are necessary for the maintainance of liberty is backwards, antisocial, and alarming; as the article points out it is also wrong.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The idea that guns are necessary for the maintainance of liberty is backwards, antisocial, and alarming; as the article points out it is also wrong.

Replace "guns" with "assault weapons" and I agree with you

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm far too lazy to read the entire thing, but from just the first paragraph I would have to say I agree with Scalia.

You know, you really should read all of an article when it's making some kind of extended argument.

[Vosem]

I'm far too lazy to read the entire thing, but from just the first paragraph I would have to say I agree with Scalia.

You know, you really should read all of an article when it's making some kind of extended argument.

OK, having come back and read it, I certainly agree with the article's logic (guns don't make you more free), but I'm still unsure of what point it's trying to make -- OK, handguns won't stop the US military. Should we force everybody to buy surface-to-air missiles? Or should we ban handguns? As the article itself notes, even if American civilians did have shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles, they would be rather expensive and a full-scale revolt would be unlikely (which is why, again, I support it, because of my belief in a wide-scale 'right to privacy'). The article has no defined conclusion.

[Free Palestine]

I'm skeptical of giving the bourgeois state and it's apparatuses the sole right to possess high-power weaponry.

[Vosem]

I'm skeptical of giving the bourgeois state and it's apparatuses the sole right to possess high-power weaponry.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm skeptical of giving the bourgeois state and it's apparatuses people the sole right to possess high-power weaponry.

[Mechaman]

Well well well.  Yet another trigger issue (no pun intended) for people to debate.

Is it really getting that boring around here?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm skeptical of giving the bourgeois state and it's apparatuses people anybody the sole right ability to possess make high-power weaponry.

[Simfan34]

I'm skeptical of giving anyone but the bourgeois the bourgeois, the state, and it's its apparatuses apparati people anybody the sole right ability to possess make produce and possess high-power weaponry.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm skeptical of giving anyone but the bourgeois the bourgeois, the state, and it's its apparatuses apparati people anybody the sole right ability to possess make produce and possess high-power weaponry. i've lost track of this entire thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well well well.  Yet another trigger issue (no pun intended) for people to debate.

Is it really getting that boring around here?

Yes.  Still in an originalist interpretation, I'd have to say the Second Amendment was intended to permit private individuals to keep military grade weaponry.  However, that was in an era where even military weaponry wasn't all that deadly.

[Free Palestine]

I'm skeptical of giving anyone but the bourgeois the bourgeois, the state, and it's its apparatuses apparati people anybody the sole right ability to possess make produce and possess high-power weaponry. i've lost track of this entire thread hurr

[AkSaber]

Well well well.  Yet another trigger issue (no pun intended) for people to debate.

Is it really getting that boring around here?

Yes.  Still in an originalist interpretation, I'd have to say the Second Amendment was intended to permit private individuals to keep military grade weaponry.  However, that was in an era where even military weaponry wasn't all that deadly.

True. But even the Founders saw how much military arms had changed (from bladed implements to projectile arms) and had to have known that military rifles would advance to something beyond the muzzleloaders being used then.

[LastVoter]

I'm skeptical of giving anyone but the bourgeois The bourgeois, the state, and it's its apparatuses apparati people anybody the sole right ability to possess make produce and possess high-power needs to be  guillotined weaponry.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm skeptical of giving anyone but the bourgeois The bourgeois, the state, and it's its apparatuses apparati people anybody the sole right ability to possess make produce and possess high-power needs to be  guillotined weaponry. How much longer until this is locked?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well well well.  Yet another trigger issue (no pun intended) for people to debate.

Is it really getting that boring around here?

Yes.  Still in an originalist interpretation, I'd have to say the Second Amendment was intended to permit private individuals to keep military grade weaponry.  However, that was in an era where even military weaponry wasn't all that deadly.

True. But even the Founders saw how much military arms had changed (from bladed implements to projectile arms) and had to have known that military rifles would advance to something beyond the muzzleloaders being used then.

Actually rifles weren't used much as military weapons.  The rate of fire was too slow compared to smoothbore muskets.  Moreover, while the Founders were many things, prescient wasn't one of them.  While they could expect improvement, I doubt that most of them would have grasped fact that the Industrial Revolution would prove to be far more profound than the American Revolution.  Even if they were able to realize it, I'm doubtful they would have changed their opinions on the subject much.  They didn't think they had prepared a Constitution that would last as long as it has.  They fully expected it to be either much amended or replaced when its provisions no longer suited the American republic.

[rwoy]

Just a thought here, but if the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the population to be sufficiently armed so that they could prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its powers, then aren't there 2 important items which the NRA and its supporters rarely consider:

1)  The weaponry available to the government and available to the people in the 18th century wasn't that different.  Under the 2nd amendment shouldn't the US Military be constituitionally bound to reveal and share its military technology with the people?

2) Shouldn't the price of "arms" be controlled and kept at a base minimum so that it can be available to the maximum # of people?  In other words, shouldn't the manufacture of arms be a "break even" business?

[t_host1]

Just a thought here, but if the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the population to be sufficiently armed so that they could prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its powers, then aren't there 2 important items which the NRA and its supporters rarely consider:

1)  The weaponry available to the government and available to the people in the 18th century wasn't that different.  Under the 2nd amendment shouldn't the US Military be constituitionally bound to reveal and share its military technology with the people?

2) Shouldn't the price of "arms" be controlled and kept at a base minimum so that it can be available to the maximum # of people?  In other words, shouldn't the manufacture of arms be a "break even" business?

Yes to ? # 1 Its known as the militia, well regulated.

No to the second, ?, unless you’re the first to manufacture munitions at cost. If you ask the hrmasterObama, I’m sure you can get all the regulation cost waived if tell him that your basically going to give it away, for the people, kind of approach.
 
I caught the interview twice; interpreting code is fun.

[Jacobtm]

The article has no defined conclusion.

Gun-rights advocates argue that the right to bear arms is necessary as a protection from tyrrany.

The point of the article is that this is nonsense, and our weapons couldn't protect us from tyrannical government, and people without weapons have achieved liberal government.

The conclusion then, is that gun rights aren't necessary for the maintenance of liberty, and should be judged on other criteria.

The obvious conclusion is that guns don't make you safer, but rather make you less safe, and should therefore be limited.