nothing is constitutional until the supremes decide it is

I think what is popular with the gun nuts about the second amendment, is basically that it is an amendment, part of the constitution, and therefore beyond reproach, something that really is beyond discussion, to criticize it is to criticize the ordained founding fathers, so you must be some kind of traitor to be agin it, so why doncha tell it to Od Betsy here.

Oh you know how you gun nuts are, always calling your weapons Old Betsy, or Mr Smith and Mr Wesson, colorful guys the whole lot of you.

But what, you don’t go with the second amendment thing? What a heretic. Myself I always thought that was weak. It always seemed to me, like I think you are saying, that it’s saying something like, IF a well regulated militia is required THEN the right to firearms should not be infringed. So if the first premise is false (a militia doesn’t appear to be required, and in any case we don’t have those anymore, except for those black helicopter guys who seem to have gotten lost in the forest and starved to death years ago), then the second is voided, and thus the right to bear firearms can be infringed. Not that it has to be, just that it can be.

I’m not familiar with this most recent Supreme Court decision.

It happens all the time where your or my side wants to pass a law and then the other side declares that it is unconstitutional, and then the two argue over whether it is constitutional or not, and the fact is neither side really knows whether it is or not until it goes up before the supremes. And that’s a little odd because maybe it would have gone one way except that before it gets to the court one of the supremes dies or quits, and a guy who thinks differently takes his place and so it goes the other way.

Well so it goes. This is the law of the land. I believe the founding fathers wrote into the constitution that the supremes would decide what was constitutional.

It always seemed a little odd to me, that people like you and me howl about whether this or that is constitutional or not, and we’re not even lawyers, so how the hell do we know? And even if we were lawyers, we’re not supremes, and even if we were supremes, we wouldn’t know what the law of the land was until we knew how the other guys were voting.

I think mad king George never had an issue with colonists toting firearms because there was not a lot he could do about it. I don’t believe he allowed his subjects in merrie olde Englande to do the same.

This yeoman thing seems pretty far fetched to me. I’ve never come across anything about the founding fathers thinking we should all be yeoman, especially since we didn’t even have a damn king for them to be in the service of.

Anyway I don’t think you should be going to English common law for your sources. We had no love for the English when we wrote this thing, and much of it was written to make sure the new government didn’t treat us like the Brits treated us. Ever wonder about that thing where you can’t force people to board your soldiers? Who the hell would do that? I think the constitution was written in a time when we weren’t sure if the British were coming back again, so we thought a little differently than we do now. Does that mean that they thought differently then and so we should interpret it in the light of the present day? I think so.