The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a landmark decision that for the first time truly interprets the 2nd Amendment. For over two hundred years courts, law professors, and NRA members have debated the true meaning of the amendment. What limits does it put on the right of "the people" to own handguns, rifles, assault weapons, or those groovy shoulder-fired rocket launchers, which until now were only the weapon of choice for Hezbollah, the Taliban, or other "muslin-extremists"-types? Now, thanks to the American-conservative-"extremists" on the U.S. Supreme Court the good "people" of the United States have the right to "keep" and "bear" this type of "arm" as well. Read all about it after the jump.
I hope this decision has a major impact on the general election. Because it shows the true extremism of the conservatives and what will happen to this country, if just one more of these wackos get on the U.S. Supreme Court –should John McCain get elected and fulfill his promise to appoint more conservatives to the high court. These nuts will return our rights and freedoms to the 18th century if we give them the chance: say good by to abortion rights, environmental rights, gay rights.... But we can all tote assault rifles, now, if we want to.
Here is a rundown of what Scalia said today in his decision and why we can, now, all run out and get one of these cool shoulder-fired rocket launchers for hunting or home protection purposes. Scalia started by defining the term "arms." Here are a few relevant quotes from the decision.
"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour (sic) of defence (sic)"(citations omitted). Timothy Cummingham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth (sic) in wrath to cast at or strike another."
The court then goes on to say the term "arms" was not limited in meaning to weapons "employed in a military capacity." But then cites an example that states:
"[a]lthough one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that souce stated that all firearms constituted "arms" (quoted parenthetical in original).
Scalia closes the section with this pithy line:
"... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Thus, The honorable Scalia is saying "anything" a man "takes into his hands" or "useth in wrath to cast at or strike another," shall be interpreted as the type of "instruments that constitute bearable arms." Thus the good "people" of the U.S. shall have the right to "bear" these types of arms as well. Therefore, are not those groovy shoulder-fired weapons we have all see used in Iraq and Afghanistan, also a weapon that can be taken into your hands and used in "wrath to cast at or strike another." I would say, they sure do fit the wide, wide, wide definition cast by Scalia here as "arms." Thus, isn’t he saying we can go out and buy up these babies. Maybe this decision will be an economic boom for the military industrial complex –with all the assault weapons and rocket launchers that will now be flying off the shelves and out the door at gun shows in every town across the country.
So that you can create your own wish-list of new "arms" purchases--as now allowed for home owners under this decision—I have put together the following list. Maybe Home Depot will open a new section.
F#*K Slomin’s Shield, now we can protect our homes and hunt "dear" with rockets. Even Dick Cheney could not miss a deer with one of these babies. So provided below is our new shopping list for hunting and home security purposes.
Personally, I am getting one of these "Thermobaric Urban Destruction" fellows designed especially for the USMC.
See also here.
Shopping list
The RBR-90 mm M79 "OSA"
Ballistic shields
Panzerfaust3
The M72 LAW
FIM-92 Stinger
The RPG-29 and the new improved RPG-27
I here you can get U.S. Government issue RPG-29’s in Iraq at bargain rates.
See here if the link does not work:
http://www.salon.com/...
Go get them boys and girls!!!!!! Scalia says it is ok. You can fight it out in court later.
Updated ********************************************
I decided to update this little ditty because some of the comments tend to suggest that Scalia was limiting the type of weapon that could be considered an "arm." I think the following quote demonstrates that he did no such thing. Scalia could have done it right here, and he did not even squarely say assault weapons could be banned. I think the types of weapons I mention are precisely the only types of weapons that are "useful against modern-day bombers and tanks." Scalia would not even come out and say the RPG-27 was out of bounds. He had the chance and he did not do it. What else is he saying here:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like-- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.