As for the interpretation of the rest of the amendment I agree, but don’t think its necessary as the only clause in the amendment that gives any power, right, or obligation is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The rest of the amendment, provides justification for, but doesn’t change the meaning of that phrase.

I imagine the strongest argument by those opposed to the 2nd Amendment would be a “practical” one. That is, that “Militia” is equivalent to the state’s well-armed national guard and therefore individual citizens need not be armed. Certainly the national guard is a militia but it, in certain common social/historical circumstances, need not be the only militia required. Therefore, the practical argument doesn’t seem very strong.

Assuming for a moment that judicial activist outlook (that is, that militia = national guard) is adopted and a narrowing of the second amendment is rationalized then the SC is saying that the amendment is poorly written, or impractical, or unreasonable. This would, in general, be an argument that would be similar to arguments that lead to the repeal of the 18th amendment – practical arguments. Clearly it is not the place of the SC to, in effect, “repeal” it, narrow the meaning, or rewrite the amendment. I have little doubt though that some justices will take this tact.

It’s hard to see how this would be anything other than judicial activism. The one-sentence amendment is obviously purposefully broadly written allowing maximum freedom of interpretation and scope of action by the people. The founders clearly were not interested in putting fetters on gun owners. Now, it may be that the amendment is too broadly written for a safe, secure modern society. If so, then let the states and/or congress repeal it like the 18th was repealed (ahem, legally). It was broadly written on purpose and for the SC to interpret it narrowly would be a travesty. Article 5 must be invoked to change the second amendment or we are screwed (or, one might say, no longer living in a just, orderly, open, and representative republic).

Strom Thurmond won his first election – for county school superintendent, in 1923, I believe – on the strength of the Confederate Veteran vote. There are still a few – very few – living “Sons of the Confederacy”, old men whose fathers had been elderly war veterans who married young brides in the early 20th century and sired children. The last person born a Slave in the United States did not die until the late 1960′s.

Historical memory is longer than we think.

Yes, despite all the conflict that occurred between the Glorious Revolution and 1792, in terms of its impact on political theory and history the Glorious Revolution would have stood head and shoulders above all other events in the same time period.

Though shifted a generation later, I too still heard references to the Civil War from the old. “As bad as Shiloh” was one that stuck out.

To my father’s parents, Douglas MacArthur was always primarily Arthur MacArthur’s boy, even after Bataan and Korea. They used metaphors like “Rock of Chicamauga” in everyday speech.

It’s easy to imagine that for the Founders, the Glorious Revolution was a constant presence in their minds.

Unlikely, since chocolate suitable for eating was not invented until the 19th century. Before that, chocolate was only for drinking.

Just to nitpick.

Good point. We forget how hard it is to put ourselves in the shoes of those who lived in other times.