Feinstein going for another gun ban

[shagdrum]

Ya Whatever Mr Filibuster.
You haven't won anything except impressing yourself with your technical word games arguments.
Is this the best you can do here harping on and on strutting your pimple of a point?
You're funny and remind me of the knight on the bridge in Monty Python who demands to keep fighting even after his arms and legs have been cut off

I know you prefer to "debate" by ignorantly mocking certain points of view (which is the vast majority of your arguments in this thread, BTW). Is it absurd to expect you to engage in honest discourse?

Yes, we get the wall 'o' text articles you cherry pick from biased, dishonest sources (Slate) because they establish the strawman you so bravely want to demonize.

Can we move beyond Bill Maher style arguments?

 

[04SCTLS]

I know you prefer to "debate" by ignorantly mocking certain points of view (which is the vast majority of your arguments in this thread, BTW). Is it absurd to expect you to engage in honest discourse?

Yes, we get the wall 'o' text articles you cherry pick from biased, dishonest sources (Slate) because they establish the strawman you so bravely want to demonize.

Can we move beyond Bill Maher style arguments?

I read many publications on both sides of the political spectrum.
I have posted links from the Daily Caller and other rightwing publications when they had a good article that supported my opinions.
You're the ignorant one who dishonestly won't even respond to the proper manufacturers name Combat Rifle or Carbine and continue to ignore it because it totally nullifies your argument.
Other posters here do not hold your pimple sized word game views and opinions.
You also have no real life experience with guns in more than a hypothetical way.
You sir are a Poser

 

[shagdrum]

I read many publications on both sides of the political spectrum.

Good for you.

On this issue, you really haven't demonstrated it because you keep passing off strawmen as actual arguments, aggressively defend one-sided, dishonest political language and seem to be more interested in mocking and demonizing than in understanding and refuting.

You're the ignorant one who dishonestly won't even respond to the proper manufacturers name Combat Rifle and continue to ignore it because it totally nullifies your argument.

Marketing professionals using loaded language to sell their product somehow undercuts my focus on neutral language over political language in honest discourse?

Care to connect the dots on that one?

You also have no real life experience with guns in more than a hypothetical way.

I "hypothetically" own guns, use guns, hunt, attend gun shows, grew up surrounded by firearms, etc...

Got it.

 

[04SCTLS]

Good for you.

On this issue, you really haven't demonstrated it because you keep passing off strawmen as actual arguments, require one-sided dishonest language and seem to be more interested in mocking and demonizing than in understanding and refuting.



Marketing professionals using loaded language to sell their product somehow undercuts my focus on neutral language for honest discourse?

Care to connect the dots on that one?



I "hypothetically" own guns, use guns, hunt, attend gun shows, grew up surrounded by firearms, etc...

Got it.

These are all recreational hobby uses.
Have you ever felt threatened and had to deal with a hostile situation of potential harm to you where a gun was present.

So to you a products proper name as it is generally known and called in books encyclopedias and product broshures is loaded language?
Are you going to call "Running Shoes" just shoes or "Ski Boots" just boots
That would follow based on your assertions.
Maybe you should do as the Washington Times does and call them "So Called Assault Weapons" or even "So Called Combat Rifles"

 

[shagdrum]

'04, you are demonstrating how this is part of the culture war.

For someone who seems to have almost no experience with firearms (outside of an unfortunate, unpleasant one), guns are not a part of your life. But they are a part of the middle america, largely Christian culture you love to attack.

Gun control is simply another way of sticking it too them, with minimal effect on your own lifestyle.

Unfortunately that does seem to be your primary focus here. Perpetuating the same ignorant stereotypes/cliches of gun owners and "gun culture" only cements that.

Really the whole focus here is to attack a culture you have been brainwashed into hating. Your almost Pavlovian response to these issues would be comical if it weren't so sad. You are capable of much more reasonable, well thought out views, but you have that profound prejudice that seems hard to escape.

 

[shagdrum]

Have you ever felt threatened and had to deal with a hostile situation of potential harm to you where a gun was present.

I live in Topeka, Kansas.

There is a reason I "hypothetically" own guns.

 

[04SCTLS]

I live in Topeka, Kansas.

There is a reason I "hypothetically" own guns.

Well hopefully you will never have a moment of truth where you are genuinely threatened and have to use your guns to defend yourself or suffer an accident and continue to enjoy them for your recreational uses

 

[04SCTLS]

'04, you are demonstrating how this is part of the culture war.

For someone who seems to have almost no experience with firearms (outside of an unfortunate, unpleasant one), guns are not a part of your life. But they are a part of the middle america, largely Christian culture you love to attack.

Gun control is simply another way of sticking it too them, with minimal effect on your own lifestyle.

Unfortunately that does seem to be your primary focus here. Perpetuating the same ignorant stereotypes/cliches of gun owners and "gun culture" only cements that.

Really the whole focus here is to attack a culture you have been brainwashed into hating. Your almost Pavlovian response to these issues would be comical if it weren't so sad. You are capable of much more reasonable, well thought out views, but you have that profound prejudice that seems hard to escape.

It is only coincidental and not based on guns being a part of Christian culture as another thing to bash with.
My religious scepticism showed up in grade 1 at age 6 the first time I was dragged off to Mass at the Catholic elementary school I attended.
Then my parents forced me to attend an all boys Catholic high school 20 miles out of the neighborhood and it made me a very unhappy camper.
It deprived me of a neighborhood and was hard having to sit through a religion class every day or attend Mass when I didn't want to be there.
Since I gained my freedom I haven't been inside a church for more than a wedding or a funeral in almost 40 years.
I don't hate Christian culture just so called religious people violating the spirit of the Establishment Clause and using religion as justification for sticking their noses where IMO they don't belong and using made up religious assertions created to ease the fear of death as justifications for the rightousness of their opinions.

I don't have faith in (IMO) noble but childish nonsense as Einstein would put it as we have discussed before although obviously you have a different opinion.

 

[fossten]

I don't hate Christian culture just so called religious people violating the spirit of the Establishment Clause and using religion as justification for sticking their noses where IMO they don't belong and using made up religious assertions created to ease the fear of death as justifications for the rightousness of their opinions.

It's amazing that you don't see the rank hypocrisy in your comment. You wail about the 'spirit of the establishment clause' but then you demand that the LITERAL words in the 2nd Amendment be ignored.

I've brought this double standard to your attention already in this thread, and you blatantly ignored it.

Your abject denial leaves you stripped of any credibility whatsoever.

And, speaking of wall o' text articles, here's one that gets right to the heart of the issue, although I doubt you'll read it because according to you, you only read articles that support your position.

Tim Carney: In gun control push, Obama abandons logic and facts
January 16, 2013 | 6:00 pm

Timothy P. Carney
Senior political columnist
The Washington Examiner
Email Author @TPCarney

Whenever a politician proposes a policy surrounded by children, skepticism is in order. But skepticism, logic and sound argumentation are the enemies of President Obama in his gun control push, which kicked off Wednesday on a White House stage filled with kids.

After December's Sandy Hook massacre, Obama has reached deeper than usual into his bag of debater's tricks and rhetorical ploys. He assigns evil motives to those who disagree with him on policy. He tries to pre-empt cost-benefit analysis with facile assertions that any policy is mandatory if it will save "only one life." And the most contentious policy he seeks -- a ban on so-called assault weapons -- has near zero correlation to the problem he claims to be addressing.

Obama on Wednesday told voters to ask their congressman "what's more important, doing whatever it takes to get an A grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns, or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade?"

Obama's direct and unmistakable implication: The only reason to oppose an "assault weapons ban" is for campaign contributions. In his press conference, he credited "an economic element" to "those who oppose any common-sense gun control or gun safety measures."

Obama rules out the possibility that some people deeply value the constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms. Concerns about unintended consequences? Obama doesn't acknowledge those. Anyone studying the 1994 "assault weapons ban" can see it did little to curb violence. But in Obama's mind, that argument is just another cover story for "I Want More NRA Contributions!"

Obama engaged in this same sort of argumentation during the health care debate. While he had the full backing of the drug lobby, the President described Obamacare opponents as those who "would maintain a system that works for the insurance and the drug companies."

Obama's most facile argument Wednesday was this plea for gun control: "f there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." Vice President Biden said a week earlier that "if your actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking."

The flaw in this reasoning is pretty obvious. Thousands of Americans will drown this year in swimming pools. You could save many of those lives by banning swimming pools. That doesn't mean we have "an obligation to try" banning swimming pools.

We don't outlaw pools because -- however heartless this sounds -- we weigh other goods against the good of preventing deaths. In the case of a pool, we weigh the costs to health, fun and liberty against the lifesaving benefits of banning pools. When talking about gun control, we could weigh lives saved by outlawing guns against the costs to recreation, liberty and self-defense. But the Obama-Biden "just one child" rule precludes any two-sided analysis.

Finally, Obama's policy prescriptions are grounded in what's politically popular rather than what would effectively address the problem of gun violence. Obama repeatedly called for a ban on "military-style assault weapons." This is not an actual class of weapons -- this is a rhetorical device to make some rifles sound scary.


Scariness is what "assault weapons" talk is all about. The 1994 "assault weapons ban" didn't have a real definition of assault weapon. The law listed a bunch of guns that would be illegal and then laid out some criteria for what could make a gun be an "assault weapon." The qualifications were mostly cosmetic: A rifle could become illegal if you added a flash suppressor; it could become legal if you removed a bayonet.

And restricting rifle ownership has very little bearing on curbing murders. According to FBI data, rifles are responsible for less than 3 percent of all U.S. murders for which the murder is weapon is known. You are five times more likely to be killed by a knife or a blade than by a rifle. Handguns, the data show, are used in a vast majority of gun murders. But handguns don't look as scary as the AR-15.

Many on today's Left flatter themselves as being more "reality-based" than the Right. Liberals care more about science, data and the empirically proven, you'll hear from MSNBC or the New Republic.

But Obama's arguments for gun control aren't based on data or logic. They are based on aspersions, emotion and popular fears. In other words, it's politics as usual.

Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

 

[fossten]

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.

- George Washington

 

[04SCTLS]

Elaborate
I don't see the link between the 2nd Amendment and religious people involving themselves in politics instead of sticking to picnics.

In any case as F Scott Fitzgerald noted

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

F. Scott Fitzgerald

I can hold more than 1 view at a time.
People have contradictions in their human "balance sheet" of plusses and minuses.
Think of the statement of the balance sheet of the person as the Set, who the person was born to and where is the Setting and then add their life experiences.
This is another way of looking at and describing how we are all flawed and imperfect and sinners who are products of our enviromnent.
The perfect human being would have no contradictions especially when confronted by a Moral Hazard.
Moral Hazard is basically the opportunity to get something for nothing.
We all like to get something for nothing.
Even the way goods are sold ie save money by spending it is an appeal to that instinct.
Madison said that people are not angels and it is foolish to expect them to suspend their avarice willingly.
Ultimately human relations boils down to Moral Hazard and how much sin you can live with.
You see Moral Hazard most clearly in our politics of overpromise and underfunding.
With my "balance sheet" and experience gun control is a sin I can live with even though I know it won't stop a madman determined to cause harm.

Less guns is more desirable than more.

On your balance sheet based on your set and setting, guns are very important so gun control is not a sin you can live with.

I have also said I think the country has outgrown the 2nd Amendment with 300 million guns out there.

 

[shagdrum]

I can hold more than 1 view at a time.

Almost everyone thinks they can.

But there is a HUGE difference between accurately, "hold[ing] two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time" and simply buying into a false narrative that gives simplified caricatures of opposing views (usually one view overly romanticized and the other view unfairly demonized and misrepresented).

Understanding all the complexities and contradictions inherent in human nature requires rejecting those reductionist narratives and having a nuanced understanding of the viewpoints in question.

Less guns is more desirable than more.

Gun control ONLY makes sense if you view humans as little more than pawns to be moved on a chessboard by their "betters" who conveniently have political power (the gun control push is really an aspect of the culture war meant to rub the nose of Middle America in this idea; to show 'em who's boss, basically).

Of course, the complexities and contradictions inherent in human nature mean that those "pawns" will ALWAYS have agendas of their own; meaning they never stay where the elites in power legislate they should stay or act as those elites dictate they should act.

This is why tax rate increases don't directly correlate with tax revenue increases. This is why prohibitions (of alcohol, drugs, etc) has never worked. This is why regulations meant to curb unethical behavior in business generally tend to magnify and hide unethical behavior.

What makes you think that gun control would be an exception to this?

I have also said I think the country has outgrown the 2nd Amendment with 300 million guns out there.

The 2nd amendment was put in place as a check against tyranny and to provide for self defense.

Do you really think with have grown beyond that?

Seriously?

REALLY?!

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes I do but let me revise that to the guns have outgrown the second amendment.

The public supports gun control and even conservatives are for background checks and keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
You make it sound like any restrictions are a sin because of their mostly uselessness.

Guns and Preventing Tyranny

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/guns-and-preventing-tyranny/[url]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/guns-and-preventing-tyranny/[/URL]

I'm more fearful or real criminals who get their hands on the guns the NRA has made plentiful in the country than of some nebulous undefined government tyranny.
Gangs and Bikers are plentiful in this country,

One of your links shows what conservative social policies and the easy availability of guns has done to the black community.
The other link shows 8 crimes stopped vs 30,000 crimes committed

This link has this:

Laws passed allowing the indefinite detention of American Citizens without due process of law. Check. (NDAA 2012)

American citizens going about their daily business being stopped and searched again without probable cause or any kind of warrant (or even the "reasonably articulable suspicion" for a "Terry Stop"). Check. (TSA, not just at Airports, but at TSA Begin Operations At CA Bus Terminals and Train Stations - YouTube, rail and subway terminals, highways, even High School Proms.)

These are conservative "Patriot Act" type actions.

And speaking of the Patriot Act, there have been many less attempted terror acts than nut job shoot ups and violent domestics and child accidents and typical law enforcement abuses (of the Patriot Act) yet the public is ok with it to keep law and order.

Conservatives are more ok with it than democrats even though it technically more violates their principles.

Advanced democracies do not become more than petty tyrannies for a few.

I'll bet that if the Gulag was a work camp for welfare recipients and the unemployed to work the land for food and shelter instead of a handout you would be all for it.
It would build discipline, character and independence.
In my 2 opposed ideas at the same time mode I can be somewhat agreeable to that.

Americans want some gun control but also do not consider the gun issue up there with jobs and the economy.
Keeping it in perspective I suppose.

Gun owners are a minority and although a constitutionally protected one, in light of little children being massacred by the trained in the use of guns son of a probable NRA member or NRA type of person gun enthusiast and tyranny survivalist, will have to put up with some inconveniences.

And then there's irony

Gun Appreciation Day: Five injured at three gun shows
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...-different-gun-shows-20130119,0,2727285.story

Accidents happen but that's a sin we can live with.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes I do but let me revise that to the guns have outgrown the second amendment.

This statement makes absolutely no sense

• Only the people in a society can "outgrow" that (or any) amendment. It is a question of human nature.
• Rights like those in the 2nd amendment are derived from the simple fact that we are human. To "outgrow" those rights is to say we are not human

Your position on gun control is directly at odds with all your talk about "contradictory" human nature.

The fact that I highlighted the term "complexities and contradictions" TWICE in my last post and you are avoiding those points concerning human nature speaks to your intentions in this discussion.

There is a difference between honest discourse and desperately trying to dismiss inconvenient truths/maintain prejudice.

You make it sound like any restrictions are a sin because of their mostly uselessness.

No, that is just how you want to dismiss it. I am not casting any moral judgement. Stop distorting what I am saying.

Gun control is a means to an end. I am pointing out that is it, at best, an ineffective means to those stated ends and, at worst, it is a highly counterproductive means to those stated ends.

Also, I am pointing to the trade-offs involved.

Don't quote "outside the beltway" to me as they are just as much a biased enforcer of beltway elite conventional "wisdom" (and prejudice) as Slate and all the other sources you seem to cherry pick.

It is VERY telling that the articles you pick are not ones making logical arguments, but simply reinforcing prejudices with sweeping generalizations and caricatures of the entire gun culture.

I AM a member of that culture. Every time you post up one of those rhetorical hit-pieces, or make snarky yet ignorant little generalizations, not only is it intellectually insulting, it is personally offensive.

Besides the prejudice in those articles, their profound ignorance, over generalization and misrepresentation only further demonstrates the point I have been making that the true purpose of this gun control push is another front of the culture war; northeastern elites wanna show Middle America "who's boss". You haven't even confronted that point, yet everything you post confirms it.

If you have a legitimate point to make, don't hide behind sloppy articles that mostly cast aspersions and only to serve reinforce your prejudice.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, as to the point about a few people being wounded at a gun show, how does that mean we should have stricter gun control laws? 115 people died in car wrecks on the same day. Should we have a push for tighter restrictions on cars? By your own logic, we should (though I doubt you care much for logical consistency). What about rock concerts? Should we outlaw those as well?

I went to a gun show yesterday where 3000 people had shown up by the time I arrived (around noon). Haven't heard of any injuries yet.

The problem with most arguments for gun control is that they turn the perfect into the enemy of the good. By that I mean they are ultimately arguing for some ideal world where there are no guns. If that were possible it would make sense. But history has shown that prohibition cannot eliminate whatever is prohibited and ultimately just insures the most unethical people are those with the prohibited item/substance. So any policy aimed at removing guns from society (which is the ultimate purpose of ALL gun control) is misguided.

 

[shagdrum]

Before anyone further tries to use this story to beat gun owners over the head, lets get a more in depth examination of it right here...

About those gun show shootings…

...Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.

A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.

Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.​

The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.

The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.

And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.​

There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light.
​

So... of the "5 shootings at 3 gun shows" it seems only one incident may have actually been at the gun show (and, if it is conducted anything like the gun shows I've gone to, even that is doubtful, given the reporting).

 

[04SCTLS]

The headlines are accurate.
People got shot.
No one said there was a gunman.
It's embarassing to your argument.
You are the one getting defensive.
These guys were incompetent handling these lethal things.
There's a lot more stupidos out there than you care to admit.
All I meant was that ironic or not, accidents happen not that these shootings were on purpose.
These were all different places these events occured.
People are careless and make mistakes.
The irresponsible gun owner playing with his toys.
Lethal firearms are not hobby toys and are unforgiving and don't leave much room for error.
The forgetting the one in the chamber is a classic doh! repeated over and over.
The gun going off while being checked and/or unloaded at the show gate shows how dangerous these things can be.
One of the victims was reported in good spirits,
taking one for the team maybe like that lawyer Cheney accidentally shot in the face while hunting.

Pictured: The terrifying moment people run for their lives when a shotgun goes off at North Carolina gun show as similar incidents happen in two OTHER states

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hootings-THREE-different-gun-knife-shows.html

 

[shagdrum]

Doubling down on manipulative, opportunistic emotional arguments is all you have? The gun control position really is intellectually bankrupt, isn't it.

The only way the gun show accidents are an "embarass[ment] to [my] argument" (or to the gun liberty argument more generally), is if you are unfamilar with that argument. Considering both how much that argument has been pounded here, and how much of it you have ignored or misrepresented, it is safe to say you are unwilling to understand the actual argument (much easier to caricature it). the gun control advocates are arrogantly ignorant largely because they stubbornly refuse to follow any argument except their own. You are proving that here. So much for, "hold[ing] two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time", eh.

It is unfortunate when someone can't see past their bigotry against Middle America to realize how that prejudice leads them to a viewpoint that is inconsistent with their professed view of human nature as "contradictory".

 

[04SCTLS]

Live by the sword, die by the sword?
These accidents illustrate how dangerous guns are if the good guys are embarrassingly shooting themselves, on Gun Appreciation Day
With your opinion that eastern elites are out to confiscate your guns and show you who's boss you don't even support background checks or keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
You take it personally and get angry and won't even concede the obvious.
That makes you an extremist and there's no point in arguing with you anymore.
So much for your "honest debate" with your views.

In this country money is freedom and power and guns are only a false equivalency that make people feel powerful while really they are mostly powerless against economic and social forces beyond their control and owning guns will not change that.

Why would the elites want to take away your pacifier?
It seems useful for that purpose.

 

[04SCTLS]

Murderous 'monster' acquires a legal arsenal

[url]http://www.startribune.com/local/west/187610601.html[/URL]

Excerpts:

Even though Oberender killed his mother with a firearm, even though he was committed to the state hospital in St. Peter as mentally ill and dangerous more than a decade ago, he was able to obtain a permit to purchase firearms last May. That piece of paper gave Oberender, now 32, the ability to walk into any licensed Minnesota retailer and buy any assault weapon or pistol on the rack.

Dozens of other Minnesotans judged by a court to be mentally ill have also found that designation no barrier to obtaining deadly weapons.

Martens said Oberender's case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. "Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,'' Martens said. "For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person's identity and criminal history -- otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person's identity.''

David Peterson, a co-worker and friend, said he believes his friend must have been living two lives.
The two often spent time shooting guns behind Oberender's home, at targets ranging from old television sets to junk cars and pop cans, all the while critiquing each weapon, he said. He said that Oberender told him that he bought most of his guns at two licensed retail stores in the area and that the weapons were all registered.

_______________________________________________________________

So is this part of the sin you can live with or are you going to get all dissonant while you dismiss it.

 

[04SCTLS]

Here's a preview of how SCOTUS may rule

Scalia's ruling from 2008 in District of Columbia vs Heller

[URL="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119"][url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119[/URL][/URL]
____________________________________________________________

Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.
Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
​

Heller may allow all of the Obama proposals to be upheld, but one never knows. Still, even as he led the Court to strike down D.C.’s handgun ban, Scalia issued an opinion rich with clues for how he might rule. The opinion talks a lot about weapons that are widely held. When he heard arguments for the case, Scalia said, “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor piercing bullets.” He notes “dangerous and unusual weapons.” If gun advocates can make the case that a badass Bushmaster is a commonly held weapon, they might get some traction with Scalia, but if high-powered, semiautomatic weapons with large magazines are considered a subculture, it’s hard to see Scalia voting to strike down those laws. (He’s already made it clear that the Constitution’s phrase “bear arms” means something that you can carry, so tanks and planes are out, in case you were worried.)

Former Justice John Paul Stevens said last fall, as quoted by The New York Times: “Even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the Court’s decision in Heller.” On that, he and Scalia might agree.

 

[Duck]

Yes I do but let me revise that to the guns have outgrown the second amendment.

This is like saying that free speech has outgrown the 1st amendment. Due to televisions and the internet, I would say that this has more of an impact than firearms ever will.

 

[04SCTLS]

This is like saying that free speech has outgrown the 1st amendment. Due to televisions and the internet, I would say that this has more of an impact than firearms ever will.

Scalia might call them dangerous and unusual weapons which goes in line with my weapons outgrowing the 2nd Amendment opinion.