Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Unbearable Logic Link: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/unbearable_logic#30981 Post contents: I haven't read Scalia's or Stevens' opinions yet, but the whole "military service" line always struck me as wrong by simple dictionary definition. The "militia" is not the armed services, but the mass of civilians (historically, adult males) who might be eligible for military service. Now, things have changed a lot since 1791; someone joining the army doesn't usually bring along his own rifle anymore, which may have been an unspoken assumption behind the 2nd Amendment; also, 18th century military hardware was available to anyone who cared to pay for it. You could have your own private warship with cannons if you wanted. These days, it's pretty much accepted that civilians should not have nuclear weapons, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, and so on. It could be argued (though I wouldn't necessarily do so myself) that these changes make the 2nd Amendment an irrelevant anachronism. But even if we agree that this is so, it is not for the Supreme Court to decide the matter. Congress and the states would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment formally. I'm ready to have that conversation if the gun control advocates want to start it, but they seem to prefer the path of ignoring the Amendment entirely, or eliminating it by creative (if unhistorical, ungramatical, and generally intellectually dishonest) re-interpretation. This is not how our legal system is supposed to work. Sent at: 2008 12 02