That’s an inaccurate assessment of his jurisprudence. He didn’t take whatever the “rightmost” position was, he took whatever the originalist position was, with rare exception. That is the position many of us on the right side of the political spectrum favor, but it doesn’t mean he intentionally voted to line up with a political agenda, but rather that his ethos of how to decide cases was whatever he understood to be most true to the principles, structure, and intent of the constitution as conceived by the framers.
And in Heller, his caveat lined up with that ethos as well - that the right was guaranteed and was an individual right, not a corporal/group or military right, and that it also could be subject to certain restrictions of scope and qualification based on criminal status.
Which, I might add, is the position the vast majority of us gun toting NRA members hold to as well. Something that tends to get missed in this discussions when there is disagreement on what those restrictions and qualifications should be, and whether expanding them moves into the territory of abridging that right too much for it to be meaningful anymore.
It’s right up there with jumping to banning websites and censoring the internet every time revenge p*rn or hate speech is posted. Some would do it, but it doesn’t make it the proper legislative response to the individual situation.
The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.
Ha! Yet the typical talking points of immigration can be started immediately after an attack, right?
So let's see...
1. He's a lone wolf, not a terrorist.
2. It's not really an assault rifle, let me explain the difference
3. Their dead bodies are still warm, too soon to discuss policy.
4. Let's pray, instead.
5. If it wasn't a gun, he could have used a stick or slingshot or shovel, etc
6. We don't outlaw all cars when a vehicle is used as a weapon, right?
Got it. It is the same old same old, as you always make a point to say. You've given up caring? Fine. But others have not.
Want to pray? Pray also that the rule-makers grow some balls and have the courage to confront the problem.
Lone wolf instead of a single group? How about understanding how domestic violence and mental illness play a part in violence, in mass amounts and individual homicide/suicide. Background checks- can me make these more effective in ANY way? Lobbyists-- is there any connection between the amount of money the NRA and weapon manufacturers give to our members in Congress, state, and local??
Policy change? Why is it acceptable to immediately jump to promoting harsher immigration policies, denigrating religious groups, etc but it is TOO SOON to discuss gun legislation? Their bodies will always be warm on the ground, as this insanity happens every single day in this country.
Edited by Dotwithaperiod, 06 November 2017 - 09:25 AM.