Gun Control III

Percy writes:In 2008 the Supreme Court disconnected the right to bear arms from service in a militia, ruling that there was a right to own guns for any lawful purpose. One of the arguments for the majority, written by Antonin Scalia, related to the phrase bear arms:

quote:

---

At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

---

But Scalia was wrong, as explained in detail in Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’. In new databases for the period, such uses of the term "are not just rare they’re almost nonexistent."There were, of course, other arguments in the ruling, but the definition of bear arms seems fundamental. If Scalia were correct that it was used primarily outside a military context, then his reasoning to separate "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" from "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would make sense. But he had his facts backwards and so his argument does not hold water. The term bear arms was used in military contexts in the 18^th century, and the right of the people described in the Second Amendment was specific to militias.Since government militias are non-existent today, there can be no constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.--Percy

I wouldn't go that far. If the father has contravened the law - they would likely look the other way in most cases if it was known the son was leaving the State. Given what the son did, however, the people who operate the law may decide that they won't look the other way.

I wouldn't go that far. If the father has contravened the law - they would likely look the other way in most cases if it was known the son was leaving the State. Given what the son did, however, the people who operate the law may decide that they won't look the other way.

But any conviction that holds Dad responsible for the murders that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.

It also reminds us that guns do far more harm than good...

f the toddler's left hand had had a gun, he would have been able shoot his right hand before it killed him.

Percy writes:This reminds me of an incident from maybe 15 years ago where a hunter fired at a deer and missed, striking and killing a housewife hanging wash out on the line.