Importantly, he has left the door open for a convincing argument AGAINST exactly what he said, not even what the media chooses to spoon feed us.ScooterSissy wrote:I think it's important to note what was really said, rather than what some of the new stations want people to think was said. Here's the actual words:G26ster wrote:I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.
"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."
He's then asked - "How do you decide that if you're a textualist?"
"Very carefully" (as he laughed) - "My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."
The media has already decided, in their own reductio ad absurdum, that he must obviously mean all guns that can be hand carried rather than what he actually said, and the media will do that until some way is found to stop them from doing that, which means like forever, because in a similar logical twist, they see it as their first amendment right to inform the people.
But there is a logical fallacy in Scalia's statement: One of the reasons for the second amendment in the first place was the British attempt to confiscate arms from the colonists, INCLUDING CANNON!
The limitations that society had at the time included private possession of cannon, rendering his "so it doesn't apply to cannons." moot.
The real issue I have is that Scalia has now drawn a line, which the antis will gleefully pounce upon and then the arguments that ensue will include "Well if we draw the line at 1 inch guns (already defined as cannon) why don't we move it down one quarter of an inch and include .72 caliber cannon (think 12 gauge shotguns) and then just another quarter inch to those weapons of mass destruction the .50 calibers?
And on and on and on.
And of course there will be the usual calls for the NRA to "compromise for once" (not even mentioning all the past compromises) in the name of "common sense" (which, by definition would have to be the common thoughts of the masses) and to save one or more lives, especially based on Scalia's misquoted and misinterpreted statement.
Especially in regards to the text I highlighted. All of these "journalists", they are ALL crooks, even at Foxnews...its just a matter of how crooked they really are...and they all feed off of each other...once one of them puts something up, no matter how spun away from the truth or facts it may be, it gives the rest of them license to quote it and act as if it were the gospel from on high...and if they print a retraction, it is buried, whispered about, and quickly forgotten. Nothing needs to be cleaned up (though I have no clue how to do it) like our ridiculous system they call "the free press".