Justice Scalia is an originalist; he interprets the Constitution in a manner that he believes follows the wishes and purpose of those who wrote it. In DC v. Heller, Scalia was part of a 5-4 majority vote that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right for self-defense. Scalia even defended military style guns because back in the day, soldiers would bring their guns home from the war.
But if we are going to follow this originalist interpretation, let’s stick then with the guns they were using. There’s a reason why soldiers used to line up about 20 yards from each other and fire. There’s a reason why Alexander Hamilton was willing to have Aaron Burr shoot at him. Guns sucked back then. Muskets and rifles of the time didn’t hit anything. (I’m not going to make jokes about Scalia’s hunting skills–he knows first hand how to badly hurt someone).
Now, we’ve got manufacturers like bushmaster making weapons and bullets so sophisticated that they not only don’t miss, they don’t wound. And these manufacturers are advertising these skills. They are advertising high-tech bullets and silencers. (And why are silencers allowed in 39 states?) The magazine Guns and Amo defends the .223 assault rifle as the best weapon for home defense. But Robert VerBruggen is dubious–he thinks the .223 is “too weak.” I’m guessing this website doesn’t ask many questions when they sell ammo.
Eliot Spitzer attacked Cerberus today in Slate. He didn’t mention Stephen Feinberg, but I wonder if they know each other. Spitzer is Princeton class of ’81; Feinberg is Princeton class of ’82.
I said I’d post something positive today. So this isn’t bad after 22 and 8 and a win tonight against his old team.