My point to Rob was that even the founding fathers understood the common sense of regulation of lethal weapons.

However, it is also clear those same conservatives are perfectly ready to put their own spin on the original text when it can be manipulated to further their agenda or oppose that of their opponents.

This is political fundamentalism, an analog of the desire of evangelicals to use the precise text of Scripture, from the specific translation they prefer, to justify the precise interpretation they desire.

My own opinion is that constitutions function best as a flywheel in the machinery of government, a mechanism that ensures its smooth operation even when there is honest disagreement about how the text should be interpreted. If there is a political deadlock between honest men, the constitution should provide stability and uninterrupted operation of the State until the question is resolved–one way or another.

Times change, and the Constitution was written in another time. A constitution that can be too easily re-interpreted is worthless, as is one that is never allowed to change at all.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership of firearms, it has to do with the authorization of state militias. After all, in the 18th century, on the frontier or on the farm, a musket or rifle was just agricultural equipment which “gentlemen of property” could easily afford. Needless to say, flintlock muzzle loaders weren’t very practical in either committing or defending against street crime. Pistols were primarily for dueling. Muskets and rifles were bulky, and even pistols were not robust enough to be easily portable. The exposed firing pan and lock were delicate mechanisms and powder and flint could easily absorb moisture from the atmosphere. They were meant to be loaded just prior to use.

Besides, if you weren’t a white man AND a “Gentleman Of Property” you weren’t even allowed to vote. You were just a worker who probably couldn’t afford a firearm. You might even not be able to afford a knife. The G.O.P. could always pack a sword.

Of course, the gun lobby is perfectly aware of all this. They just have interpreted the Constitution to suit their own political purposes: to pander to their brutish and paranoid partisans and to subsidize an industry which is always on the verge of saturating its market. Remember, guns are very durable products. If well maintained they can last for generations. To sell more of them you have to sell the idea of multiple firearms of multiple configuration for multiple applications. You also have to justify their ownership as essential for personal survival against Commie paratroops and/or hordes of similarly armed villains.

And that, my friends, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

…Well Regulated…

I remember seeing two groups arguing gun control, and one group kept chanting “Shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed.” The other group kept chanting “Well regulated. Well regulated.”

But there’s no fudging on birthright citizenship in the Constitution. It is what it is. You want it changed, change the Constitution.