- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:59:11 +0000
He's been saying that for a while now, but I don't think he really means what he says. If you were to interpret the Constitution for what you believe society at the time the Constitution and Amendments were ratified then you would be limited to the imagination and ideas present at the time of the constitution's founding. Scalia for instance, believes that hand-held rockets are legal for the common citizen to own under the Second Amendment despite the fact that the idea of a portable missile-launcher did not exist and I would bet Scalia all the money in the world that he couldn't find a primary-source document from the era to prove otherwise.
I'm sure they figured that some sort of handheld artillery would exist by now.
But rockets don't work like cannons. They're conceptually very different. Grenades either, or things that shoot grenades.
Rockets existed then (in India of all places), though I dunno how "handheld" they were.