Societies evolve or die. To stick with an 18th century attitude would have condemnded us to an 18th century future. The difference is that Scalia does not see an evolving society or Constitution, and Breyer does see an evolving society and Constitution. Except that Scalia changes the Constitution as he sees fit when it suits him, as in the scond amendment case where he completely ignored what the Constitution said, and made it say what he wanted. So Scalia TALKS about sticking with the original Consitution until it comes up with something he doesn't like---then he changes it to something he does like.
That people should be allowed to keep and bear arms in their homes to protect themselves was a GIVEN when the Constitution was written---much like people should be able to breath air, no matter their station in life, or their position on the planet. All men who wanted, and could afford them, could carry weapons, withut restriction. To make something so obvious into a LAW would have been seen as foolish as making it a right to ride a horse into town. What men DIDN'T have the right to do was to form Militias that could threaten a powerful central government. Men DID'T have the right to oppose a strong central government, and THAT was the right that was written into the second amendment---the right to form WELL REGULATED MILITIAS---like the State Militia, now known as the National guard. So Scalia for all his talk about "Originalism" is simply another proven hypocrite and Activist Judge, who changes the meaning of the Constitution, no matter what the words say.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Constitution--A well regulated Militia is necessary to protect States from a strong central government.
Scalia: A well regulated Militia? Forget that part. Being necessary to protect the security of a free State? Forget that part too.
Constitution---This well regulated Militia should have all the arms made availabe to them as the Central government has,if they are to protect themselves from such a government. So let the people have unrestriced access to such arms, and not infringe on their right to have such arms.
Scalia---The right of the people to keep and bear arms---HMMM that's a little confusing---let's change that to simply--INDIVIDUALS have the right to keep and bear arms. OK--next? AH yes---to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, we can't have that, let's change that to--but government has the right to infringe on such right as it sees fit. OK--read that back to me.
Yes sir the New second amendment means:
Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit.
Scalia: Ah yes--that's the ticket--next case. Boy it's good being an originalist.
