Replies

Last graf, p 55...

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

A bit of circular reasoning there. How can an arm be made unlawful if not by passage of a law? If, prior to the law's passage, all weapons are legal (and the constitution covers "...the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home...", then the law would be unconstitutionally restrictive...and therefore void.

Scalia had fun with this (e.g., "Grotesque"), but it's weaselly at times, too.

But it will sure please those who are interested in a slow erosion of our rights couched in "reasonable" restrictions. President Bush will be very happy.

Still, it might be about as good as we could hope for in a dying Republic. :-(

Scalia had fun with this (e.g., "Grotesque"), but it's weaselly at times, too.

Scalia spent a lot of time on this one. It was much longer than I thought it would be, and I believe much longer than necessary.

Let's face it. Everyone knows what the 2nd Amendment means and what the founders intended and HOW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS. Scalia knows it, you know it, Sarah Brady knows it, and Diane Feinstein knows it. The anti-gun positions have been developed OVER TIME more as an attempt to create a reality rather than describe one.

The only people who might not know it are the moonbat followers who have convinced themselves of the fig leaf "militia" argument and are "true believers" of the dogma without much actual rational consideration of it.

Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady are not morons, they know they are trying to create a new reality via word-smithing and not describing what is and has been.

Scalia did have fun with it....using similar word-smithing and parsing to poke holes in the anti-gun dogma. It was entertaining, and well deserved, but I'm not sure that its a good idea in the long run. A much shorter and to the point refutation of the alternate reality would probably stand the test of time better and provide fewer seams to pry at. The word-smithing game makes it easier for the other side to crack open your actual argument later.