Bellyflop Jr. is my dad. I’m the third.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Repeat: I’ve referred to Scalia before and feel his contribution to this subject is highly valued - very highly valued. But as you noted, “But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided,” means precisely that, it hasn’t been decided and we can reasonably infer he hasn’t even decided it in his own mind yet.
I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere before.[/quote]
You’ve lost focus, or you are ignoring the larger point: Scalia believes that states can regulate arms to a certain extent because they have historically been able to, and Scalia does not believe that the Second Amendment allows citizens to have the kinds of weapons the federal government does as a matter of “equilibrium” (i.e., tanks, jets, cannon, etc.).
Scalia believes these two things. As to each, agree with him, or disagree with him?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand. I’ve referred to Scalia in this regard on two occasions in this thread.[/quote]
Precisely why I directed you to his thoughts on the matter, which contradict yours.
Thanks for the posts, TB. I had been aware of the excerpt from his book but not of the Fox interview.
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
And, furthermore, that the Second Amendment does not necessarily protect every extant or conceivable weapon from restriction, even if they are used by our armed forces?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
[/quote]
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
[/quote]
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.[/quote]
Of course we have. Push did it a few pages back and even his interpretation blasts the “militia rivaling the federal government” nonsense to pieces.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Thanks for the posts, TB. I had been aware of the excerpt from his book but not of the Fox interview.
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
And, furthermore, that the Second Amendment does not necessarily protect every extant or conceivable weapon from restriction, even if they are used by our armed forces?[/quote]
I’m not going to agree with you on anything until you ante up. You want to play the end of the hand first. You have to play the game the right way. I’ll guarantee that’s how Scalia does things.[/quote]
What is it that you’re asking me to do exactly?
I’ll be back shortly with the response to your interpretation that I alluded to earlier. I just have to assemble my shiny new MPAD first.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
[/quote]
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.[/quote]
Of course we have. Push did it a few pages back and even his interpretation blasts the “militia rivaling the federal government” nonsense to pieces.[/quote]
Whoa. I’m not so sure my interpretation does any blasting.
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
any weapon capable of being handled by the common man, in other words any weapon that the common man could/would “bear” would be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment so that such man could defend his life and property, AND together with his other fellow men, pose a formidable force, a deterrent, against a rogue government
[/quote]
This blasts to pieces the notion that the Second Amendment explicitly calls for a citizenry with firepower equal to that of the federal government.
Yes it does.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.
[/quote]
This tells us all we need to know about you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< the Tiribs of this world wring their hands and whine about futility. >>>[/quote]See Hijack Haven please.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You and smh are attempting to quibble about large weapons - artillery, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., when the fact of the matter is the actual battle front is located in small weapons, the very ones Scalia and ME! agree are pretty cut and dried not particularly (constitutionally) open to exclusion.[/quote]
Nope, I’m not quibbling about one weapon or another one - I don’t particularly care about that at the moment - or how the actual battle with the “fe’rull gummit” would play out. That’s a red herring - it’s irrelevant.
I’m just interested in your “yes” or “no” answers to the following points I just made re: Scalia:
- Justice Scalia believes that the Second Amendment does not prohibit the states from placing some limitations on arms based on the states’ historical ability/authority to do so.
Agree with Scalia, or no?
- Justice Scalia believes that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to arms that are not hand-held, such as a tank or a cannon.
Agree with Scalia, or no?