Fat chance you'll hear Thomas on much, but Scalia sure does like that sweet sound of his awesome voice.

“Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” he said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation” when the Constitution was written. He cited, for example, a misdemeanor at the time, of carrying a frightening looking weapon such as a “head ax”.

So, Scalia says to expect restrictions in the future.

But remember, any gun control legislation that is new, or enforcement of existing laws, will only effect the behavior of people who pay attention to and obey those laws. Which, by definition, excludes every single person who has committed gun crimes, small and large, over the last decades. Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora, CO and our own Thurston HS; each of those perps disobeyed existing gun laws, and all would have disobeyed any new laws that we can think of in the future as well.

I don't have the answer, but I'm just sayin' what is common sense obvious but ignored by the gun control lobby.

What? No cannons!
At the time the second amendment was written, one of the fears was that the federal government would use troops to overpower states, as they would do in the civil war. The "militia" was indeed to oppose foreign enemies, but not necessarily only foreign enemies.
But that was when citizen soldiers stood a chance against armies equipped with weapons much like their own.
There are in this country many people who arm themselves against the day the army comes after them to take away their guns, or make them vote or do something the UN wants them to do. But the army has way more firepower, to say nothing of artillery and air power.
Amateur artillery batteries would seem an unreasonable danger to the rest of us, and would certainly need to be regulated. The NRA might even favor that. But that deprives the worried citizen of his chance to resist a despotic government or an invading army.
So an armed citizenry is an empty threat. Which means the rationale behind the second amendment no longer exists in any practical sense. We should stop arguing about this as if it were a religious debate, and come up with a practical solution to private gun rights, without reference to an obsolete Constitutional concerns.

And I see no reason for justices keeping silent on broad issues that are likely to come before the courts. We generally know their previous positions. We are supposed to be able to trust them to make their decisions based on the law as it stands, just like a lay juror in Podunk.

.... and criticize a colleague for a past opinion

Are you saying that it was Scalia who leaked information to the press about Roberts' switch on the ACA?

For all those who think that insurgents armed only with small arms are impotent against a modern army I would direct your attention to Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria....

Harry,
Your statement that all prior mass killers have violated then-existing gun control laws is just flat-out false.

On Wednesday, Napolitano stated that DHS expects to deploy drones in-country.

Queries: Why has DHS ordered 450 million .40 caliber hollow-point rounds?

Why has DHS put in a rush order for riot gear?

Why is Eric Holder not in jail?

Do you really think arms control laws are inherently meaningless or futile, Harry? Consider that lots of bad guys in the US would love to use rocket-propelled grenades to kill folks or accomplish their deeds. But because of government controls, they not easily accessible, a bad guy obtaining one would be rather difficult and exceptionally costly. Compare to say, the Middle East.

On some other blogs, tea-bag types are really freaking over these non-news comments from SCOTUS' favorite windbag. Surprisingly, I draw some kind of intense pleasure from this. Probably not healthy. Is this schadenfreude, or something else? If this is even a minuscule sample of what I'll get to experience when the right absolutely loses their s*** after Obama wins reelection, it's going to be a doozy.

... of carrying a frightening looking weapon such as a “head ax”.

Odd, I have still vivid and disturbing images of a man brandishing an ax handle.

Jack, I disagree with you on both points: Scalia didn't talk about the substance of gun control, nor did he criticize Roberts's recent health care opinion.

The interviewer challenged Scalia on the dissent in the health care case, especially given one of the chapters in Scalia's new book. Scalia didn't even mention Roberts's name; he just defended his own opinion.

In addition, he repeatedly refused to discuss internal Supreme Court proceedings.

Re: gun control, I don't think he said anything inappropriate, repeatedly refusing to decide the interviewer's questions re how Scalia would rule in certain situations.

I'm not sure I'm on board with Scalia's originalism, but he comes off in this interview, as always, as a very articulate, intelligent man.

You're entitled to your opinion. Especially if you're a corporation. But the comments quoted in the linked article are substantive. That's why, in general, judges don't belong on interview shows on television.

So Jack (honest question) did you criticize Breyer when he appeared on the same show back in 2010?

Personally I like to hear from them occasionally and not just from the bench.

did you criticize Breyer when he appeared on the same show back in 2010?

No, I didn't hear about it. Probably because he didn't say anything substantive.

But generally, the Supreme Court justices, whatever their politics, don't belong on talk shows. If they want to be on TV, they ought to start by going all nuts and allowing live video of their own proceedings.

Aaron: On some other blogs, tea-bag types are really freaking over these non-news comments from SCOTUS' favorite windbag.

Not sure what you're trying to say, other than the usual hater approach of sexual put-down.

Are you referring to the "racist, homophobic Republican" TEA party associates? Or the black and Asian TEA party associates? Or the Independent and the Democrat TEA party associates? Maybe you mean to impugn the Libertarians?

You really need to clarify toward whom you wish to direct your hatred.

Breyer and Scalia have actually given us demonstration now of the right and wrong way to go about this. Not too long ago, the two of them actually did a fairly good job of informing the public of a thing or two over television.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

Max:

I'm talking about the kind of people who seemingly believe the second amendment was put there so they can commence a violent coup against our Government should they deem it necessary, or at least so they can easily murder anybody stealing their stuff or making them feel frightened, whether they belong to a well-regulated militia or not. I think they see any gun control as threatening to that beautiful notion. Today there's a legitimatized political group overflowing with these troglodytes.

Aaron:

So you feel it necessary and a meaningful contribution to refer to people as "teabaggers" and "troglodytes"?

Stay classy.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .” — Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”– Thomas Jefferson

So you disagree with Libertarians, Independents, Democrats, and Republicans who happen to subscribe to the views of Jefferson. And the best you've got is juvenile tactics. Okay, then. Thanks for the clarification.

Max - I love you. In a completely hetero way, of course.

Max, I find it necessary and satisfying to call you an intellectually dishonest teabagger.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

This is a fabricated quote. Often attributed to the Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334, it simply is not there. Historians have not found this quote in any speeches, letters, or personal diaries.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”– Thomas Jefferson

Exact same thing with this one. Utterly fake quote some gun nut must have thought sounded cool and affirmed his strange views.

Where did you find this crap? A chain e-mail? You certainly didn't learn of these through any kind of genuine research. Jefferson has written a great many things, and they're all public domain and easily available for you to read.

Even if you hadn't been spreading lies, it wouldn't matter as to your point. Only this is what was ratified for the Constitution by Congress and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson:

"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."

A correction.

Typically your second false quote ("The strongest reason...") is appended to the end of the first one. But the initial quote ("No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.") indeed isn't completely fabricated -- instead it's from a early draft of the Virginia State Constitution, that didn't make it in.

In his first draft of the Virginia constitution, it was:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

In his second draft:

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.

In his third draft:

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.

And finally it was dumped entirely before it was adopted.

Keep on with the class, Aaron. You may notice that nobody here uses the abusive terms quite like you.

And no, I didn't get the Jefferson quotes from chain-mail - you just can't stop with ad hmominem attacks, can you?

Here's another quote from Thomas Jefferson that you may find distasteful:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I recommend the gun...Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." 1785.

As you noted, before calling me a liar:

In his first draft of the Virginia constitution, it was:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Let's see, Aaron: so far, you've called me a liar, a teabagger, said that I'm full of crap, and ranted on. As I've noted, your behavior is juvenile, and as I've also noted, you appear to agree with me when I stated that Jefferson wrote: No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

You quibble about other statements referred to, all the while hurling invective and publishing false accusations.

When you are invited into someone's living room for a discussion, Aaron, it's bad form to crap on the carpets, and then fling it at others. What are you - a chimp?

So Jefferson thought guns made for good exercise. Great. I'm sure you can come up with plenty more quotes about what the founding fathers thought about guns. Who cares?

You attributed a false quote to him advocating that the most important reason for gun ownership is so they can be used to overthrow the government, as some kind of evidence that I'm wrong in my portrayal of teabagger-types. You haven't acknowledged or apologized for it. Yes, I accidentally thought you had two fabricated sources instead of just one. I corrected myself as soon as I saw I was wrong.

you appear to agree with me when I stated that Jefferson wrote: No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Sure he wrote it. For a state constitution. That got dropped. Again, who cares? The writings and teachings of Jefferson aren't some kind of bible we must respect. And you notice in later drafts this was changed to only allow use of arms on your own property.

I didn't call you a liar, but you did spread a lie. I do claim you are being intellectually dishonest, and I'd be surprised if you don't identify with the teabaggers.

If you want to continue worthless exchange further, feel free to leave your e-mail address and I'll be sure to get back to you.

Even if you hadn't been spreading lies

Aren't semantics wonderful, Aaron?

You didn't call me a liar, you simply implied it. I don't identify with the teabaggers, as there is no such group - it's just a hate-term that you use.

I posted three (now four) quotes. You claim that one is falsely attributed.

Who cares? Obviously, you do - else you wouldn't spew so much hate-filled venom.

And now, as is typical for hate-filled Lefties, you think you can dismiss the feces-throwing and name-calling that you (and you alone) have engaged in by referring to it as a "worthless exchange", grabbing your ball, and running back home to Mommy.

You've yet to reply to my previous query, which I'll expand upon: do you hate Republican teabaggers, Independent teabaggers, Democrat teabaggers, and Libertarian teabaggers? Do you reserve your hatred for whites, or do you include blacks, Asians, and Hispanics as targets for your venom? I use the term, "teabaggers" only because you seem so enamored with sexual targeting; it is therefore a term that you're comfortable with.

Whom, exactly, don't you hate?

Stay classy, Aaron.

I don't feel hatred for those groups of people.

Scalia is not hard right on gun control. It would be shocking if the court expanded gun rights beyond the status quo. It might even create limits that go beyond current federal regulations - at least if Scalia finds an old story about a group of lawful townspeople taking a pistol away from the town drunk.