Reply #18: You have it a little backwards

[Zomby Woof]

The framers DID intend the 2nd Amendment to be about what you interpreted as the "living document" philosophy. The words "well-regulated militia" do not just mean "the entire citizenry". And it wasn't included as a means of "repelling an oppressive government", but as a means of repelling unwanted invaders, which the early patriots came to see the British as being. This was key to frontierspeople living among the Indians, and not just city yokels keeping invading armies at bay. Your interpretation is a classic right-wing fantasy about the lone armed patriot taking on the Big Bad Government - a myth so ingrained it gave us Randy Weaver and David Koresh.

Garry Wills lays out the linguistic realities of the 2nd Amendment in his book "A Necessary Evil", by explaining what those words meant in the context of the times of the framers - right down to what "the people" meant. It would have the NRA putting their hands over their ears, saying "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Or gun-totin' cowboy libertarians right along with them.

In the main body of the Constitution, it states that Congress shall regulate the various militias. The 2nd Amendment states the militias shall be well-regulated. Seems the people who comprise the militias are under the umbrella of congressional regulation. So much for using them to stave off the oppressive government.

So the irony here is: You of the self-styled "founders' intent" school ought to be thankful for "the living document" philosophy, because it allowed many of you to pervert the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, among a good handful of other amendments, in order to suit your romanticized Davy Crockett fantasies.

Here's to the living document, as intended by the framers.