You should read this
You will discover that ORIGINALISM, or trying to find out the original meaning of the Constitution when written, is hardly the equal of employing intellectually dishonest tactics.
As for the definition - it is not mine. It is from Webster's Dictionary 1828 edition. That sort of research is part of the originalist approach favored by serious people - often conservatives.In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the legislative branch) but only to uphold them. The term originated in the 1980s  but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism.
Today, originalism is popular among political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory.
Last edited by haymarket; 12-27-12 at 05:45 AM.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are infringements on the right
nothing more, nothing less
And the Supreme Court has ruled restrictions are Constitutional, the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, the mentally ill and felons are barred from exercising the 2nd A WITHOUT being enumerated in the 2nd A.
And what conservatives/libertarians/gun lovers seem to not understand/accept is change.
Everything changes, the year is 2012 not 1612.
The wild west is no more, the "king of the hill" is no more.
Man is becoming , slowly, more and more social - I think this is where the tea baggers have a problem.
And, YES, even the definition of words change.
Pick up a dictionary from the 1600s.....can't find one....the 1700s ....probably the first one.
Compare that to one designed in the 2000s, again, if there is one.
To do this, one would have to visit the NYC public library and do some serious digging.
Design, an interesting word...
Definition, another word of interest..
INFRINGE : to break
There is a difference between the two.
I can see and accept the Constitution framers use of "infringe" . In their time, no government was 100% or even close to being trustworthy..
Today, things are different..
I think this clears a lot of things out.
I am "one of those" ignorants.It is very clear that ALL of the people currently hawking all kinds of gun control as a 'solution' to the issue are nearly completely ignorant of anything regarding guns.
Thus, here's no need to take seriously any opinions from these "common variety pro-gun control" (tm) people. H Lee White
For 70 plus years I have wondered why we need to kill....in order to defend ourselves....a "stun gun" is, IMO, a good idea...
To listen to , but NOT necessarily accept arguments from the other side is a good idea....NOT IMO...In my opinion, its a "closed mind".
Does the NRA think that our latest mass murdered need an assault rifle to defend him self from school children ????
Even if he was sane, and he had a stun gun, how many could he murder ?
NO, the mentally unstable (like me) do not need an assault weapon, further, IMO, NO citizen does, unless that citizen hates his fellow man that much.