I am sorry you had trouble with it. Here's what I was saying:
You argued that the historical situation had changed--that because we now have "loyalty lacking transients," we have to look at the Founders' historical context to determine what they really meant, rather than interpret what they said in light of changing circumstances. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," you wrote.
I'm just pointing out that this is exactly the same argument liberals often use against the RKBA. To wit, the arms the Founders were familiar with were muskets and single-shot pistols, so we should look at the context to determine what arms they meant people could own. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," they say to support their efforts to ban semiautomatic weapons.
So I was asking: do you agree with them? Or is the only principle you go by that of whether you like the result (and then try and call that the "conservative" position)?
No worries. Understanding is something that occasionally escapes even me! :)
You argued that the historical situation had changed--that because we now have "loyalty lacking transients," we have to look at the Founders' historical context to determine what they really meant, rather than interpret what they said in light of changing circumstances. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," you wrote.
Yes, I stand by that. I have long argued that what is important is the PRINCIPLE involved, not what meaning can be wrung out of the words.
I'm just pointing out that this is exactly the same argument liberals often use against the RKBA. To wit, the arms the Founders were familiar with were muskets and single-shot pistols, so we should look at the context to determine what arms they meant people could own. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," they say to support their efforts to ban semiautomatic weapons.
But this is a nonsensical effort on their part. It is indicative of a lack of understanding as to the purpose of the Second Amendment. That purpose is likewise spelled out in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and various other writings and acts by the founders. The point isn't to make sure everyone possessed flintlocks, the point is to make sure the population could scare the government away from tyranny. Apart from that, we can also look to it's purpose as described by Vattel's law of nations, the blueprint for our national constitution. :)
So I was asking: do you agree with them? Or is the only principle you go by that of whether you like the result (and then try and call that the "conservative" position)?
The only thing that matters is the purpose for which the law was created. Words are often a poor way to communicate a principle, but that is all they had to work with. The words themselves are not particularly important (A Concept which is in direct opposition to what many judges seem to think) it is the principle which is embodied by the words that matters. For example, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press meant Speaking in front of an assembled audience, and publishing newspapers or pamphlets as Thomas Paine did. As Radio and Television came into being, the purpose/principle remains the same. To communicate with other members of the society. If we eventually develop "telepathy waves" that too will be a protected form of speech.
As the purpose of the Second Amendment is to deter Federal Tyranny, and to enable people to protect themselves, the type of weapons used to accomplish this are irrelevant to the salient principal involved. To argue that a militia armed with flintlocks could serve the purpose for which it is intended against a modern Federal Army is just absurd.
"A Well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a Free state..."
By the same token, to suggest that an Anti-American Son of a Foreigner with multiple citizenships, who lived many of his formative years in a hostile and wildly different culture and who's only claim to even basic citizenship is the (yet to be established as fact) occurrence of his "birth" within the boundaries of a radically different and barely just made a state culture, (and even THAT is a misrepresentation of the intent of the 14th amendment) should somehow comport with the purpose of Article II (Which is to guard against foreign influence) is likewise absurd.