I think that your analysis works. As I recall, Justice Scalia would not reject out of hand the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies to things like grenade or rocket launchers. He'd have to think about it if it came up in a case. He may have been speaking with tongue firmly in cheek, although he takes the "bear arms" seriously as indicating that the weapon must be carriable. But from my angle that cheek was the nether one. He meant the question seriously and intended to encourage wingnuts. After all, if the justification for the 2nd Amendment is "self protection from the government," despite Article 3, section 3's definition of treason as "levying War against them" [i. e. the US], then in the modern world backpacks with explosives or bomb vests, carriable as they are, are the weapons of choice.


Edited by yoyo52 (04/16/13 08:39 AM)
_________________________
MACTECH ubi dolor ibi digitus