Justice Scalia, the champion of literal interpretation of the Consitution, has found it appropriate to pay attention to only the second half of the Second Amendment, while having the gall to state that this decision has protected the same Amendment from being destroyed by imposition of regulation...

In modern English, the term "bear arms" is a antiquated term and is never used except to paraphrase the second amendment. Have you ever heard that phrase in colloquial speech except for when someone is referencing the Second Amendment? Even the term "arms" is not used unless it is combined with "fire", something that has a different scope of meaning.

In the 18th century, bearing arms was a common term, but it did not mean possessing firearms. It meant mustering in defense of your cause with arms, which could be saber, musket, ax or even pitchfork.

Me, personally, I am not much in favor of any kind of restriction on personal firearm possession. I believe that everyone should have a right to own what they judge necessary for their personal use, while regulations should also be in place that allow society to control the impact that possession of firearms entail.

That having been said, I do not think the 2nd Amendment says anything about personal possession of firearms and because of the change in technology and society (gun possession was not such a big deal two hundred years ago because guns were not as plentiful nor were they as effective as they are today.) over two centuries, the constitution sorely needs an amendment that clearly spells out the rights and responsibilities of gun owners such as myself.

It would do everyone credit to have such an amendment.

"will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

-Antonin Scalia

The term "arms" is not archaic:

• SALT/START - Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
• Armed and dangerous - carrying a weapon and willing to use it violently
• TCAFE - Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
• Arms Industry

Arms is not now, nor was at the time of the signing of the US Constitution, limited to firearms. It includes what commonly are called WMDs.

At the time of the signing individuals were allowed to own Privateers - after all they were a critical part of the War of 1812. A Privateer of that time was the single most powerful weapon in the military's arsenal. A mobile platform of powerful long-range guns that could easily destroy a port city that did not have a shore battery with which to respond - this is where the term "Gunboat diplomacy" comes from - send a gunboat into an area without shore defenses and suddenly there is a lot less resistance.

IOW a Privateer of those days has its modern equivilent in tactical nuclear weaponry.

If a Privateer of those days could be individually owned and protected by the 2nd Amendment, then there is no real Constitutional basis for limiting access to any sort of armament.

Is that really what you seek?

The term bearing arms is.

I think there was something about bearing arms in my pledge of loyalty to the United States when I was inducted into the Army, but besides that, the only reference I have ever heard of the term bearing arms is in reference to the 2nd Amendment.

Gunboat Diplomacy was not coined until later in history, since in those days a Privateer would not be defined as a gunboat - in those days a gunboat was a small craft with a single gun mounted in the bow.....sort of an attempt at a torpedo.

The Gunboat as a strategic weapon originated with the ironclads of the civil war and rose to prominence during Teddy Roosevelt's time. World War II saw the demise of such strategic weapons and the last attempt at such diplomacy ended up tragically in Beirut during Reagans term.

The term "gunboat diplomacy" comes from the Opium Wars which well precede the Civil war, but you are right about the meaning of gunboat at the time of the signing. But the notion of using a warship with its massive amount of armament and its ability to destroy a shoreside city to influence political outcomes is as old as putting arms on ships and STILL is being used to day. Afterall we have Guided Missile Cruisers in the Persian Gulf saber-rattling against Iran.

But can individuals own such ships today? No. Clearly the reading of Am2 is now restricted to gun fetishism.

You should read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion for an interesting discussion of the phrase "bear arms." <link>

Thanks - I spent my time reading Scalias decision and had ignored the dissents since they unfortunately offer very little refuge in anything but the long term.

Stevens' reading is much more consistent with what the so called conservatives desire in a justice: deference to textual and historic meaning....

Yes, it is truly amazing what a whore Scalia is. It would be very interesting to see if he has ever voted against the conservative wing of the Republican Party in cases that played out on that particular axis. I very much doubt it.

Scalia's crime is his pretense that he approaches Constitutional evaluation any differently than Ginsberg, Souter, or Stevens. The problem is his smoke screen of "activism" that he waggles at others, all the while engaging in exactly that sort of activism. That makes him intellectually dishonest, but no whore. What drives him is his honest belief. He just believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

A fair and true analysis, unless; you happen to be a anti-gun nut or liberal Democrat. Then the only fair analysis is that he made his decision for political reasons. This is of course noting but a lame excuse made by pathetic losers who want the world disarmed and are smart enough to realize that it will never happen.

We who uphold the 2nd Amendment and use our right to bear arms, in our own homes for self protection, hunting and or just plain target shooting, respect the rights of those who choose not to own a firearm. Why can't they respect our rights?

Washington D.C. has been a prime example of a FAILED gun ban law. In Washington D.C. besides the law enforcement officers, the only people who have guns are the criminals. This fact makes the law biding citizens easy prey for criminals. Now I understand that when a criminal breaks into a citizen's house and the citizen is armed with a firearm, it creates a hostile working environment for the criminal, but HEY live is tough!

On a serious note as an honorably retired Law Enforcement Officer, I believe in the rights of law biding citizens to own fire arms or not as they choose. I also support training and qualification with their firearm of choice. I firmly believe that if you are going to arm yourself, in your home for protection, then you should know how and when to use your weapon and what type of weapon is best suited to protect you while at the same time protect you neighbors (as much as possible) should you miss your target or the bullet go through the criminal and into the wall that may separate you from you neighbor in the case of an apartment.

One of the reasons the Japanese did not try and invade the west coast is because the American people were armed with their own guns, first thing a totalitarian government does is take the guns away from the people.

If people are being terrorized by their government they should have the means to remove the terrorizers.

As I sit here in the front office of my house, I estimate that this window is in range fo perhaps a dozen stationary guns and perhaps twice as many have driven by in the last half hour.

While I am qualified to operate a weapon, having served in the US Army (which curiously, did not respect the Second Amendment!) and I have a reasonable understanding of the use of deadly force (basically, don't do it!) I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that 90% of the possessors of the handguns withing my range do not possess either.

I'm all for me owning guns. I do. But where is my protection from the irresponsible owners around me?

Military decisions are based more on supply chains than anything else. Rember the Japanese DID invade parts of Alaska where individual gun ownership is much higher than along the west coast.

The Japanese supply chain was over-stretched just to bomb Pearl.

What you understand about military history could fill a library of books (hey it already does).

Am2 is pretty clear both in its text and in the arguements both in committee as well as in the ratification hearings. It has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or personal self-defense. It is about having a military weapons distributed within the population so that if a State needed to call up the militia, be it to defend against invasion or against an over-reaching Foederal Government/Army that the state militia would be able to go Toe-To-Toe against the Army.

Which means that this decision, with its corkscrew logic about how the 2nd Amendment only applies to guns that arent "dangerous" and only those that can be carried by a single individual is about as politically motivated and activist as it gets. Unless of course you are a gun fetishist, in which case it is a "fair and true analysis" . This is nothing more than a lame excuse made by pathetic losers who fetishize their guns and dream of a spaghetti western standoff with "bad guys".