[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Well, his contorted reasoning in Heller is more reason for me to doubt the utility of his originalism, which he seems to assert when convenient and to drop when inconvenient.

I think his parsing of the two clauses of the amendment is quite contorted, and of course the S.C. agreed with me and not Justice Scalia (that the first half of the amendment limited the second half of the amendment) for the better part of a century.  But supposed I accept for the sake of argument that Scalia's originalism does prove that the 2nd amendment's prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") does not limit the scope of the amendment as the Supreme Court previously thought, what then?  If we are solely concerned with what was truly the original meaning, wouldn't the 2nd amendment only apply to the kinds of arms that existed on the date that the 2nd amendment was passed?  Is this the right to carry flintlocks?

I've always understood the first portion of the amendment as providing rationale for the second portion, rather than constraints.  But I suppose that is neither here nor there.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Well, his contorted reasoning in Heller is more reason for me to doubt the utility of his originalism, which he seems to assert when convenient and to drop when inconvenient.

I think his parsing of the two clauses of the amendment is quite contorted, and of course the S.C. agreed with me and not Justice Scalia (that the first half of the amendment limited the second half of the amendment) for the better part of a century.  But supposed I accept for the sake of argument that Scalia's originalism does prove that the 2nd amendment's prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") does not limit the scope of the amendment as the Supreme Court previously thought, what then?  If we are solely concerned with what was truly the original meaning, wouldn't the 2nd amendment only apply to the kinds of arms that existed on the date that the 2nd amendment was passed?  Is this the right to carry flintlocks?

I've always understood the first portion of the amendment as providing rationale for the second portion, rather than constraints.  But I suppose that is neither here nor there.