Well, whatever you think about the social consequences, Justice Scalia’s job is to interpret the Constitution, and what he said is consistent with that responsibility. For example, you cannot lift a Tommy-gun, so such a weapon is not protected by the Second Amendment, which speaks of “bear[ing]” i.e., holding, arms.
With regard to restrictions in place when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, those restriction shape the meaning of that Amendment, in the same way that some speech-restrictions at the time the 1st Amendment was adopted shape the meaning of that provision. E.g., defamation, “fighting words,” some kinds of threats, etc. are all speech, yet not protected by the 1st Amendment.
LOL! Uh, I hate to break this to you but, you've got toilet paper stuck to your shoe, shill. Bwahahahahaha!
See:
I agrre the second amendment only applies to shoulder arms. But that INCLUDES those smei-automatic rifles called “Assault Rifles” by the ignorant.
“With regard to restrictions in place when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, “
Kind of vague. What they intended was more important. In some communities, there was a municipal poweder magazine but people could keep their muskets. In other communities both muskets and powder were in a local arsenal. In still others, people kept both powder and muskets and/or rifles.
So what exactly was he saying.
Basically I distrust all Supreme Court Judges and their doctrine of Stare Decisis,
I think the Second Amendment protects all types of military shoulder arms, except possibly fully automatic weapons, But the Brady Bill and other “assault rifle” legislation was directed mainly at semi-automatic rifles as ownership of fully automatic weapons has been limited by Federal Government for a very long time.