We armed. We won.

Now we have a military to keep King George off our ass and have no need for this.

That ..."to keep and bear..." Ignores the rest.

We, as a society need to recapture that meaning from the NRA. The meaning is universal conscription for anybody who owns top of the line infantry weapons. Contemporaneous papers to the Amendment are clear as day on that, including federalist 29.

So let's call the sks what it is, an infantry weapon. Let's call the bushmaster what it s (even with the smaller caliber) an infantry weapon. Definitely let's call the AR what it is, an infantry weapon.

Back in the corner are a bunch of founders shaking their heads at our collective inability to understand simple English and how clauses work and yes, comas, including Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision, to serve the NRA.

So as far as I am concerned, I am no longer willing to give 'em a pass.

Won't pass this congress, but right as you buy that, the owner should be given his conscription papers and drill schedule. Just the idea of having to serve would reduce their sales instantly.

With the 2A they may have been simply trying to guarantee that the collective would never be disarmed and left defenseless by a tyrant. Their mistake was in the imprecise language that allows more than one interpretation: the collective right vs. the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I tend to think that if they had meant for it to be interpreted as an individual right they would have mentioned some limitations on the size and number of "arms." They wouldn't have wanted to facilitate private armies with artillery and such rising up to challenge the new government.

The idea that the Constitution, written when it was, should be a static framework not open to interpretation and updates is just completely ludicrous.

This is the 21st century, not the 18th. We need to recognize that more often.

Single shot muzzle loaders like those contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution and nothing more. I'm a strict originalist when it comes to the Second Amendment. Screw the NRA.

It should only apply to material produced on 18th century printing presses? Or are you selective?

In other contexts, I don't buy into the Scalia nonsense. But if teabaggers and survivalists want muskets that take minutes to reload after firing, they can be my guest. The founding fathers clearly did not envision assault weapons or rapid-fire weapons when drafting the Second Amendment.

A rarity in the gun debate.

I'm very much in favor of gun control. There simply is no justification for allowing ownership of assault weapons or handguns.

It is just that most people who attack the 2nd amendment pretend their position of interpretation of the 2nd is the same as any other part of the Constitution. You admit you interpret the 2nd one way and other parts another. The fact is that to truly have your position then the 2nd has to be removed from the Constitution. No legal scholar, liberal or conservative, interprets it in a way to ban handguns or "assault" weapons.

Why are you using a computer and not a printing press?

And then apologize. Do you know what a single- shot muzzle loader is? Do you know what sarcasm is.