re: #250 HappyWarrior

The ambiguous language regarding the militia is what I mean here. Anyhow, the 2nd to me actually is why I had the biggest problem with Scalia’s and now likely Gorsuch’s Originalist judicial philosophy. We can’t get Rufus and the Phone Booth to get James Madison to San Dimas to ask him about how he intended the 2nd. Though, we should be using what we have got and the times we’re in.

It’s so obvious that the interpretations are driven by political convenience as opposed to any real principles.

For example, at the time the second amendment was drafted, “arms” would have presumably included swords. So under recent SCOTUS cases, there is presumably a damn near absolute right to be armed with a sword in public. Like that will ever happen.