1. It seems that many people forget that the founding fathers were revolutionaries. They didn’t trust government, so of course they wanted to limit government’s ability to restrict civilian guns. Without civilian guns the Revolution would never have been able to begin.

  2. Great idea publishing this blog. Since there’s a significant delay in reaching the market for most of what you write (magazine lead times, etc), it’s great to find a forum where you can put your thoughts down on paper practically instantaneously, especially for those of us who are LFI alums.

    Keep up the good work.


  3. There is a great article Right here on BWH that is very relevant to this discussion. It is in Issue #58 titled “We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment” By John Silveira. The article goes into great detail on the second amendment and its true intent and interpretation. You can read it in the John Silveira’s Colum area. It’s worth your time.


  4. Justice Stevens must be senile. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was “to limit the tools available to “… the Tools.

    As Scalia writes:

    We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
    upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

    So much for Stevens.