Ugh, yet another guy doing a hack job on the "second amendment."

I've already written about this topic here, and I don't want to rehash the entire subject. But if you just read what was written and said at the time of the actual constitutional convention, it's totally obvious that the various state delegates weren't afraid of foreign invaders, and hence we need an armed militia to maintain a free state; they were afraid of the militia itself!

"Look, we just got done with the fucking British having an occupying militia standing around, quartering soldiers in our houses, and generally making a nuisance of themselves, exploiting us via oppressive taxation with thousands of bayonets in and around our towns and cities, often right outside or even in our own homes. A state is not free if such a militia is not well-regulated! The only way we'll accept allowing the new, proposed Federal government have a militia is if we the people can keep and bear arms, so as to well regulate this Federal militia and hence keep a free state!"

Rather than look at the original intent, the author's only "evidence" to support his preposterous interpretation ("they only meant that militias can have weapons, hur dur") are modern court rulings, made by: you guessed it, people just like this dude! Yes, the author is a former Supreme Court justice! So basically, what he is saying is "this sentence means what I say it does because I said so! And if you don't like it, you can fuck off!"

Since he insists on rewording the amendment to suit his revisionism, how about if I reword it to make it more clear what was meant? How about this:

"A state is not free if its militia is not well regulated, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."