I'm sure that he feels that what he is saying is true. In a modern liberal education, feelings trump knowledge. He feels like it's too difficult to understand then it is too difficult to understand.

one question no anti-gun zealot has ever been able to answer for me is how they can contend "the people" in the second amendment only refers to a "group right" without rendering the individual protections they cherish in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments group rights also, since they too reference "the people" .

either "the people" consistently refers to an individual right or it doesn't. anything else is sophistry, at best.

He's right. The Constitution DOESN'T say anything about needing to be "signed up with a "well-regulated militia..." in order to keep a military capable weapon at home.

I always ask these people to produce for me citations of laws passed by the new government that OUTLAW the possession of firearms by private citizens. Where are the public notices directing citizens to turn in their weapons to the local armory? Where are the records of prosecutions of people for not doing so?

Why does he think that the Constitution OUTLAWS everything for private citizens that it does not specifically permit -- when it does precisely the opposite? Oh. Right. He had a liberal education.

I mean, I learned this stuff in GRADE SCHOOL!!

What does he think a Minuteman was? Oh. Right. His girlfriend probably knows.

Yes well you don't need to be smart to qualify as a progressive intellectual. You just need to be able to emote the right feeling in support of your argument. "Duh, I don't get it" Said with a certain disdain is oh so persuasive. I guess.

In fact, the Constitution does give Congress some regulatory powers over the militia. See Article I, paragraphs 15 and 16. Further, Congress has in fact regulated the militia, beginning with the Militia Act of 1792. (Note that I think the right to bear arms was intended to be individual, and not collective, even if the militia was regulated.)

I suppose now you will explain that "regulate" in Section 8 doesn't mean "regulate," but something else. That rather proves Ezra's point that the Constituition can be interpreted differently.

Further, as Ezra said, the House's constitutional citations on its bills would not be binding, because the Constitution doesn't give the House the sole discretion in deciding the constitutionality of its own legislation. Making the House's constitutional citations binding would be unconstitutional, in other words. The laws could still be challenged in court and declared unconstitutional later, no matter what the House says. There's nothing wrong with the citations, but I think you'll soon see that the citations serve no real purpose, which is Ezra's point.

Please excuse me -- that last comment should have cited Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16. I left out Section 8.

I've decide to utilize my marginal bully pulpit in defense of what Ezra Klein was implying. He obviously was not clear enough, perhaps an analogy would do the trick :

Ezra Klein In The Cross-Hairs Of Right Wing Outrage

The problem isn't that the constitution isn't clear-- the problem is it is crystal clear. Read the dicta in both the Heller case SCOTUS and DC Court of Appeals rulings. Pages and pages basically stating- it means what it says. The already existing right the colonists had as Englishmen to keep and bear arms as individuals would not be infringed by the new government.

That's the problems most of the left and people like Klein have. It is a simple, clear and very understandable document- but they don't like what it says and have to try and twist it to argue it means what they would like it to mean.