Skip Navigation
23 comments

  • Opinion | Anton Scalia was a worthless stinking fat piece of shit who ignored reality to legislate his twisted vision from the bench. Glad he's fuckin dead.

    • Look I hate the guy plenty, too, but this isn't exactly solid ground to start a discussion with. The article provides plenty of ground to talk about linguistics or at the very least not just hate on him. I think it's important to point out that he was not just a deplorable person, but that the very reasoning he used to argue in favor of his points was not based in reality.

      • Agreed, sorry, it was just the format of the title made me want to format my personal opinion on him as well.

        That's just, like, your opinion, man.

        Also, just to point out:

        but that the very reasoning he used to argue in favor of his points was not based in reality.

        who ignored reality to legislate his twisted vision from the bench

        I feel like I covered that.

  • Interesting article. I don't think the linguistic argument used in the OPED is going to sway anyone to support gun control.

    I think a lot of the efforts to implement gun control ignore the nature of the US. The country is large and in some areas people can not rely on quick police response or if the police can respond quickly, they can't be trusted to act in good faith.

    We certainly need some gun control to prevent those who are mentally ill or previously convicted of violent crimes from owning guns. Even processes for these, if put in place, must be appealable to ensure universal fair treatment. Additionally mandatory wait times would be great as well.

    I think bans of X gun because it's scary are non sensical because those bans are not going to win over any gun rights advocates to create a national consensus.

    The large majority of gun owners never commit a violent crime and should not be told to give them up because of the actions of a few.

  • 🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary This is fairly clear from the text, which says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

    He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

    A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase.

    And in 1840, in an early right- ­to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote: “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

    I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

    Saved 65% of original text. :::

23 comments