WOW!!! FABULOUS post!!! VERY glad you're here! Impressive! And your second-to-last line - PRICELESS!!!!! OMG!!! I'd bet the gun-nuts have no clue about that part!!! "Strict constitutionalists" my ass. Just use the first syllable in "constitutionalists" and you've about pegged it. Just another CON-job...

But I think I understand how some of these folks think. Use a highfalutin' word to throw 'em off. Makes you look smart and makes 'em think you're smart (or, better, smarter than they are). Also, I'm sure they've noticed that when bill o'reilly says "constitutionalist," or even "traditionalist" or the really fun one - "originalist," it sometimes stops his on-air opponent for a moment. It's a mind-fuck. But not one person across the table from him ever makes HIM stop and define what he means by those phrases? And if one IS indeed, an "originalist" or "traditionalist," shouldn't all Second Amendment's references to "arms" refer to the arms known, recognized, and used at the time the document was originated? Wouldn't that be during an era of widespread use of muskets, bayonets, and blunderbuss-style weaponry? So therefore should we not read the strict original sense of the Second Amendment to apply to the owning and using of muskets, bayonets, and blunderbusses (blunderbi?)? Seems to me the Second Amendment covers all things musket/bayonet/blunderbuss - and nothing else.