A new user commented: excite1997 0 minutes ago | unvote | parent | next [–] This thread is likely gonna be a minefield and get canned, but the article tak

A new user commented: excite1997 0 minutes ago | unvote | parent | next [–] This thread is likely gonna be a minefield and get canned, but the article takes a swing at the 2nd Amendment, for example, pretending to be impartial but calling it a "reinterpretation". I was surprised to see it go dead almost instantly. It's a fair comment (well, the minefield part is unnecessary). I wanted to reply with: Listening to the decision is fun (Heller 2008). Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... (Justice Breyer also reads the dissent) [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290