• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Antonin Scalia opens his mouth again and inserts foot.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ConstipatedVigilante said:
Weapons, armies, ICBMS, bombs, and nukes. All of those are "arms." By your logic, citizens should not be allowed to own early repeating rifles because they didn't exist in the era of the founding fathers. Citizens can't own nukes either. But we can own current, modern firearms (e.g., AR-15s, bolt-actions, handguns) because they are current firearms, which is how the Founding Fathers meant it. They did not assume that flintlocks would be the cutting-edge forever.
Click to expand...

Actually ICBMS, bombs, nukes, rpg's and all that stuff is considered ordnance. Different from arms. Completely different. If the founders wanted citizens to own cannons they would have worded it a bit different. The 18th century definition of "arms" is actually quite narrow and clear. But that would mean your outlandish "OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT NUKES?!? DID THEY WANT US TO HAVE NUKES?" argument is null and void so you probably will just bury your head in the sand and keep on truckin' with the anti-gun ignorance.

Side note - AR-15's are not allowed everywhere. Some states/cities refuse to follow federal law.
 
Last edited:
thraashman said:
Actually the 14th Amendment didn't give any additional people in the nation the right to vote either. The 15th Amendment prohibits denial of suffrage based on race. The 19th Amendment then extended suffrage to women as well. However the 14th Amendment does explicitly say



I don't see the part in there where it says "All straight men born or naturalized in the United States...". Ah, now I know why I don't see it, because it wasn't in there and totally meant to provide equal protections to ALL Americans regardless of any reason. And know why I figure that out, I'm not a fucking retard that's why.
Click to expand...

Yeah it says that and guess what, women weren't really considered "people" hence the reason WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE REASON TO VOTE. In CONTEXT of the 14th passing, it had nothing to do with women and was solely for men. Because of that, it cannot be interpreted to be for women that would just be wrong. That's like saying the word for wheel in chinese doesn't mean wheel in english. it just doesn't compute
 
I think the Founders were pretty clear on
sheepdaddy.jpg

🙂
 
nick1985 said:
Actually ICBMS, bombs, nukes, rpg's and all that stuff is considered ordnance. Different from arms. Completely different. If the founders wanted citizens to own cannons they would have worded it a bit different. The 18th century definition of "arms" is actually quite narrow and clear. But that would mean your outlandish "OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT NUKES?!? DID THEY WANT US TO HAVE NUKES?" argument is null and void so you probably will just bury your head in the sand and keep on truckin' with the anti-gun ignorance.
Click to expand...

Umm muzzle loading cannons are covered under the 2nd amendment and are still legal today?
 
Gyhrg71 said:
Umm muzzle loading cannons are covered under the 2nd amendment and are still legal today?
Click to expand...

From what I understand arms refers only to pistols, rifles, etc something that someone can hold in ones hand. Cannons were / are considered ordnance and not protected by the 2nd amendment.
 
nick1985 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Section 2.2 Antique firearm. Firearms defined by the NFA as “antique firearms” are not subject to any controls under the NFA.22 The NFA defines antique firearms based on their date of manufacture and the type of ignition system used to fire a projectile. Any firearm manufactured in or before 1898 that is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition is an antique firearm. Additionally, any firearm using a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type ignition system, irrespective of the actual date of manufacture of the firearm, is also an antique firearm.
Click to expand...
Muzzle-loading firearms are exempt from the Act (as they are defined as 'Antique Firearms' and are not considered 'Firearms' under either the GCA or the NFA). Thus, though common muzzle-loading hunting rifles are available in calibers over 0.50", they are not regulated as destructive devices. Muzzle-loading cannons are similarly exempt since the law draws no distinction between the size of the muzzle-loading weapons; thus it is legal for a civilian to build muzzle-loading rifles, pistols, cannons and mortars with no paperwork.
Click to expand...

edit: and from what I've read a manually operated gatling gun is legal as well. Of course check with a lawyer before buying and operating. 😉
 
Last edited:
bfdd said:
Yeah it says that and guess what, women weren't really considered "people" hence the reason WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE REASON TO VOTE. In CONTEXT of the 14th passing, it had nothing to do with women and was solely for men. Because of that, it cannot be interpreted to be for women that would just be wrong. That's like saying the word for wheel in chinese doesn't mean wheel in english. it just doesn't compute
Click to expand...

So the court's interpretation improves. That's a good thing.

Women weren't granted the right to vote under the 14th, but they should have been.

It took over 100 years for the 14th to say gays have equal rights in the military too - until a federal judge ruled this in the last year - but he did and that's a good thing.

It's the older, bigoted interpretations that are wrong. It's the wrong interpretation that looks at the language "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and says, "oh that doesn't mean the laws about voting for women." Society 'wasn't ready', but it was wrong when it wasn't.

The Supreme Court rules segregation was fine in Plessy v. Ferguson, and 60 years later said the 14th meant it's not constitutional, and that was a good change.

Sorry, people who get basic logic but not the larger issues, but sometimes the court is wrong, and legal understanding and societal understanding evolve.

It didn't change or damage or negate the constitution for gays to start being covered - it corrected and strengthened the constitution that was erroneously interpreted before.

It didn't open up the gate to 'the words don't mean anything but the arbitrary opinions of the justices' - there has been a lot of improvement more than worsening.

It didn't suddenly mean 'your dog can vote' or 'you can marry your car'. That's ignorant idiocy, and used to persuade idiots to oppose the good improvements.

The very function of the court was modified the right to interpret was interpreted.

The constitution gave the right to interpret sort of, but didn't say what to do if it found a law unconstitutional, and some founders didn't think the court could strike down a law. What it was supposed to do, I don't know. Apparently state its opinion and let the other branches do what they wanted. But they interpreted the constitution to give it the right to strike down laws.

Interpreting the 'spirit of the constitution' is essential to protecting the rights it's intended to protect, and Scalia's radical opinion undermines the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Craig234, what do you mean the interpretation is wrong? They wrote something that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME FRAME MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN IT MEANS TODAY. That means IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT we have to use the "old" definition of it. That means women don't count, they should have, but they didn't. Scalia is right in saying we if people have problems or want to change things that's what legislation is for. Saying something means something else doesn't help anyone. Why even have any form of constitution in the first place if what it is written in its meaning changes from decade to decade?
 
nick1985 said:
Actually ICBMS, bombs, nukes, rpg's and all that stuff is considered ordnance. Different from arms. Completely different. If the founders wanted citizens to own cannons they would have worded it a bit different. The 18th century definition of "arms" is actually quite narrow and clear. But that would mean your outlandish "OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT NUKES?!? DID THEY WANT US TO HAVE NUKES?" argument is null and void so you probably will just bury your head in the sand and keep on truckin' with the anti-gun ignorance.

Side note - AR-15's are not allowed everywhere. Some states/cities refuse to follow federal law.
Click to expand...
I was responding to an anti-gun nut. I don't think the founding fathers would want citizens to have nukes.
 
bfdd said:
Craig234, what do you mean the interpretation is wrong?
Click to expand...

What was unclear in what I said? Saying the phrase I quoted did not give women the right to vote was not following the words.

Saying segregation was not a violation of the 14th - perhaps somewhat understandable theoretically at first but then clearly wrong - was another error.

They wrote something that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME FRAME MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN IT MEANS TODAY. That means IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT we have to use the "old" definition of it.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You are assuming the court never makes a mistake, that interpretations can never correct an error in an earlier interpretation.

In fact, as I said, you can't understand the interpretations any better than to think that any improvement being allowed makes the document totally arbitrary.

That means women don't count, they should have, but they didn't. Scalia is right in saying we if people have problems or want to change things that's what legislation is for.
Click to expand...

No, he's not right. For example, the court evolving to better apply the constitution to not allow the inequality of imprisoning gays for the sex that is their orientation but has no compelling state interests to prohibit is an improvement interpretation, not something that needs legislation.

Saying something means something else doesn't help anyone.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. Saying it means the wrong thing earlier is what hurts people.

Saying segregation, gay discrimination and other discrimination was wrong, you say "doesn't help anyone". I can point you to millions who prove otherwise.

Why even have any form of constitution in the first place if what it is written in its meaning changes from decade to decade?
Click to expand...

Because it means what it says - and that can be improved and evolved over time, as I explained this does not allow 'any' wild arbitrary interpretation, just the best one then.
 
That the Constitution is mostly based on grand Ideas and Principles rather than minute Details and Specifics is no accident. The fact that specific views of the various Founders can only be found outside of the Constitution is also no accident. Their greatest contribution was avoiding turning the Republic into a stagnant machine based solely on the opinions of a few men. From the start they built the Nation so it could change as times change. For they knew that they hadn't the ability to foresee all things.
 
ConstipatedVigilante said:
I was responding to an anti-gun nut. I don't think the founding fathers would want citizens to have nukes.
Click to expand...

lol are you calling me an anti-gun nut? 😕
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster​
How can Americans resist the government if we don't have superior weaponry? Clearly without helicopters, machine guns, tanks, mines, nukes, missiles and so on we have no chance against the USG. Since that is what the founders had in mind I can only assume they wanted us to have all of that.
 
Last edited:
Marlin1975 said:
I guess you missed this part...

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1971 that the clause protected women from discrimination."

But I already know, like Scalia, you only like the constitution when it agrees with you.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court also ruled that an act on intrastate commerce is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by the federal government.

That certainly is also not in the Constitution.
 
Craig what I'm saying is people were ignorant assholes back then and women weren't a "person" so yeah it wasn't written for women. I don't see why this is so hard to understand? You can't even argue differently because history backs up my claim. Look up the history of the 14th amendment, it was not written for women. This angered women at the time and brought a lot of steam to the womens suffrage movement. I have said this like 4 times.
 
Amused said:
http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1

The full interview, minus the out of context quotes and sensationalism:

You've sometimes expressed thoughts about the culture in which we live. For example, in Lee v. Weisman you wrote that we indeed live in a vulgar age. What do you think accounts for our present civic vulgarity?
Gee, I don't know. I occasionally watch movies or television shows in which the f-word is used constantly, not by the criminal class but by supposedly elegant, well-educated, well-to-do people. The society I move in doesn't behave that way. Who imagines this? Maybe here in California. I don't know, you guys really talk this way?
Click to expand...

Really? Nothing like Scalia sucking up to the base. He doen't remember Cheney on the floor of the senate telling a senator to go fuck himself?
 
bfdd said:
Craig what I'm saying is people were ignorant assholes back then and women weren't a "person" so yeah it wasn't written for women. I don't see why this is so hard to understand? You can't even argue differently because history backs up my claim. Look up the history of the 14th amendment, it was not written for women. This angered women at the time and brought a lot of steam to the womens suffrage movement. I have said this like 4 times.
Click to expand...

Their intent was not to give women the vote. But what they wrote is more correctly interpreted to do just that. They wrote it more broadly than they intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top