Quote
You can twist yourself into a pretzel all you want in defending Scalia’s asinine and fool-hardy illogical interpretation

I have no idea what that might have been, you have clearly read it, understand it and are qualified to argue against it. I encourage you to brief us on his opinion and yours.

This is the second amendment in its entirety and my opinion:

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 constitution clearly states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

(because the government might need for them to be armed if we are attacked, is the way I always understood the preceding statement.)

Nowhere does it say that the "right" to bear arms is entirely contingent on the government's possible need for its citizens to be armed, just that the security of a free state requires them to be armed.

To my notion the "well-regulated" part puts the lie to any claim that guns can't be regulated out the ying-yang. It only becomes "infringement" if you take away the right entirely.

And you can twist yourself into whatever pretzel shape you want dissenting the SCOTUS decision about firearms but it stands until you can get it reversed.

I'm putting that about two decades away. It took them 50 years to strike down Roe and it will be at least 20 years before we get a liberal supreme court again.

I wish I could be here for that but it doesn't look real promising.

Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...