EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I don't really care for Judge Immergut's reasoning on the high-capacity magazines question, even though her conclusion is convenient* for someone who wants to limit the availability of those things, because it's based on an "originalist" reading of the Amendment, which I think is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Using her logic, no magazines should be considered protected under the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, no repeating firearms would be. We very quickly get back to the old saw that the 2nd Amendment only protects a White man's right to own a flintlock musket (which is not a real argument, it's only meant to highlight how dumb "original intent" is). As I reckon it, gun enthusiasts have to be in favor of a "living Constitution" philosophy of jurisprudence, or almost none of their toys would be protected by the Amendment they're always hiding behind. (I mean, if it were up to me, we'd just get rid of the 2nd Amendment entirely, but I think gun enthusiasts and I at least have to agree that 'original intent' is an idiotic way to understand the Constitution.)
* If you've ever wondered what a "concurring opinion" is in SCOTUS decisions, this is it: We agree on the conclusion, but not on the thought process that gets us there.
* If you've ever wondered what a "concurring opinion" is in SCOTUS decisions, this is it: We agree on the conclusion, but not on the thought process that gets us there.
Last edited: