Justice Scalia also wrote that, ‘Weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned’ without infringing on the Second Amendment. Do you agree with that statement that under the Second Amendment weapons that are most useful in military service … may be banned?
March 21, 2017
FEINSTEIN QUOTED SCALIA OUT OF CONTEXT TO PUSH AGENDA
[What Scalia actually wrote was:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
I was pleased with Gorsuch response. He handled the deceitful tactics well:
“It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, senator, respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”
As is usual, anti-gun politicians knowingly lie in their attempt to infringe upon our specific enumerated right. It’s all they have to work with. And we will have their lies to work with at their trials.—Joe]