opt. cit. LOL.

Its not often that reading a supreme court verdict has me ROTFL. Observe as Scalia lays the smackdown in the recent gun-rights case, DC v Heller:

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war”

Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning [as the dissenting justice do] would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war–an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would rather be like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

Leave a Reply