You got me on Tommy Guns. I should have said Gatling Guns.
You conceded that machine guns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, so I don’t see a great difference in principle between you and Justice Scalia. I don’t think Scalia has thought out what restrictions he would uphold; he takes whatever case is before him. I doubt that he would uphold any restrictions on “assault weapons” when that category is defined cosmetically, as was done in the 90’s.
Differing from you, Scalia would not say that he believes in “original intent” - referring to whatever is subjectively in the minds of the framers. He’s say he interprets the Constitution according to “original public meaning,” which would take account of historical conditions such as some restrictions on guns in the founding era. But that does run into the problem, as you point out, of different restrictions in different parts of early America.
Regards, and good night.
Thanks.
But keep these points in mind.
First, just because a justice or even the majority of SCOTUS says something, that doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong. Dred Scott is an example.
Two, MOST of the time, “conservative” judges are our friends. BUT, on occasion, they can drift off to the far right - like FASCIST - when it comes to basic rights.
Thirdly, the people who are pushing the anti-gun agenda, Bloomberg, McCarthy, etc, are not stupid fools. They KNOW stronger gun laws will have little or no impact on maniacs. THAT is not their objective. They are out to eliminate private ownership of firearms because they find them culturally unacceptable and because they don’t trust the mass of the people to have fireams which could threaten the government - and THEM. They will push the anti-gun agenda as far as they can to secure their ultimate goal of national disarmanent.
Finally, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or collecting, or target shooting, per se. It had EVERYTHING to do with the perceived necesssity to defend the nation against invasion and the people against oppression - foreign and DOMESTIC.
I was deeply disappointed with what Scalia said, but I understand he can’t speak on a law he hasn’t seen, and even then, not until he has reviewed all the evidence and formed his opinion.
But I think he should have been more circumspect in speaking in any detail on this topic to a liberal operative like Wallace.