PJ Media

Interesting points abut the anti-Federalists; I do need to read more on them. Were these eventually Democratic Republicans, or whatever Jeffersson’s Party called itself on any given day of the week…or a different entity? It would be good to remind many how the Founders were not always on the same page. Their battles with each other created an impressive set of documents, but some argued against them so passionately, that it may be a stretch to expect unalloyed genuflection to or agreement on the meaning of simple phrases in 2010, when such was not unanimously the case when they were written, or any time since.

In what I have read so far, I can see that the well regulated militia is not THE controlling factor, but neither is it completely irrelevant and (in my opinion) as said militia alters over time, SOME tweaking of the absolute rights may be permitted/necessary. In fact, we both know that this has already happened. I am open to more reading on the matter.

As for the prevalence of guns in colonial culture, one would assume that there were regional differences. Certainly by the time of the Civil War, the South was much more into the tradition of carrying and shooting than was the North, and on a percentage basis, I suppose that the same is definitely true today. I would probably settle for a Federal RIGHT to bear, but also a Federal monitoring system with relatively uniform laws for purchasing, qualifications. disqualifications etc. Obviously any move in this direction turns some of the enthusiasm for the recent ruling on its head. Local states and police can be tyrannical and unfair to certain interests, but can also give a lot of local loopholes.

Finally, how DO criminals get guns? It’s kind of a mystery to NRA folks; they know that they will always have them, but don’t know (and don’t want to know, evidently) where they come from. In fact, it may be a natural right for criminals to have guns…and nature supplies them. There, I’ve moved one or two clicks in my thinking today.