Scalia not right wing enough

Ok. He's going by the text. I go by the intent which is to scare the hell out of any government that tends to be tyrannical (all of them.) Citizens should be able to have any arms at all, regardless of being able to carry them. Give a rancher on our southern border a tank and he'd have less trouble with drug cartels I'd imagine.

Go back to the Waco standoff. The government could have waited and captured anyone they wanted in town rather than killing children at the Davidian compound. The 2nd amendment wasn't about hunting for food, it was about defending oneself from our own government. If a group are able to defend themselves on their own property from police and military attack, then the government has to use less tyrannical, more adult methods of persuasion. Courts, with rules of order, are for dealing with issues rather than guns. Giving citizens the ability to defend themselves forces the government to use the justice courts.

Update: Der Schtumpy says it well...

There were numerous wealthy people in America, circa 1776, who OWNED cannons, and ships with cannons on them. Those were the ‘Sherman Tanks and bazookas’ of the day. I see ZERO restrictions on those in MY copy of the Bill of Rights.

Technically, Bill Gates, Warren, Buffet, and even that idiot Bloomberg, have enough money, and should have the 2nd Amendment Right, to own a Arleigh-Burke Class DDG, AND the Rights to arm it!! The Founders made no rule against owning ‘military grade’ weapons. And do you know WHY they didn’t?

Because many of the men who fought in the Revolutionary War had also fought in the French and Indian war AND they still had their Brown Bess musket. It was THE best ‘military grade’ weapon for a single fighting man there was. And that IS the gun they were protecting, so the citizens could protect themselves FROM the government, when they WROTE the Bill of Rights.

So give me my bazooka, or give me death!!