Originally Posted by Marcus1124

To suggest that the general public understood the "arms" in keep or bear arms having nothing to do with classes of weaponry generally referred to as "arms", but rather as "'human upper limbs; especially the part between the shoulder and the wrist." is one of the most willfully ignorant or flat out dishonest things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

But then this is the type of sheer stupidity that has been demonstrated over and over again by some on the forum.

What is next? That "bear" was understood to be an animal, and that the 2nd Amendment is talking about keeping "bear arms" and not even human "arms". Sheer sophistry and foolishness.

So ignorant of basic english, basic law, and basic legal and cultural history to realize that law rules for statutory construction he keeps quoting (but clearly too obtuse to UNDERSTAND) are the very rules which Scalia consistently applies to his textual interpretation.