Mmmm...

We just got the most amazing peaches I've had since being in the frozen tundra. Of course, it's hot as balls outside and i've a bit of a burn from the sun, so it's about time my comrades from the South let some of them through the Mason-Dixon.

Off that note, S. and I had a great talk tonight about how we read the Second Amendment as it stands. Just taking what's said there (with the context of what they wanted to say there) and what do we come up with, etc. So here it is, for reference:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have to say that it says that the People have a right to bear arms. Not what kind of arms, but that there is a right, afforded the People (which is up for discussion too), that they can own a gun. She reads that it's inherently tied to "the need for a Militia", in the first part of the sentence. All in all, it's so poorly written (independent subordinate clause?), it's hard to parse it out. Part of me wants to read the antithesis to it as, "Since we don't need a Militia, we shall infringe on the people's right to keep and bear Arms." Still a 'right' in that context. She reads the antithesis as, "Since we don't need a Militia, the people have no right to bear arms." And I see what she's saying, and I agree with that stance, but it's easier to see how people want to, and can, poke holes in it.

Then the question is, do we need a Militia now? Further context here, if you're interested. Seems it was intended to allow white men to keep their guns to fend off the Injuns and Redcoats (if they came back), and is not necessarily a personal right. Much credit to S. for finding this stuff and totally disagreeing with me, while not using her law and English background to stripe my arse on a meds day. She's the bestest.