[inquest]

Well, until your friend shows up, I just want to say that I think I agree with him (bearing in mind that the only thing I know about his position is what you've told us right here). I agree that the first thing we need to look at when determining the meaning of any law is the text itself, because the whole reason for writing a law down was so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel by wondering what it was they "intended" to say (the ol' hanging-chad syndrome). If the text seems inconclusive despite all our efforts, then it would be appropriate to inquire as to the intentions of the authors.

[Lazamataz]

Well, until your friend shows up, I just want to say that I think I agree with him (bearing in mind that the only thing I know about his position is what you've told us right here). I agree that the first thing we need to look at when determining the meaning of any law is the text itself, because the whole reason for writing a law down was so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel by wondering what it was they "intended" to say (the ol' hanging-chad syndrome). If the text seems inconclusive despite all our efforts, then it would be appropriate to inquire as to the intentions of the authors.

Well, we can rely on the text to a reasonably large degree. There was at least one weapon of mass destruction (e.g., an indiscriminate weapon) in existence in the time of the founders; the introduction of biological agents against a populace. I am not seeing mention of the keeping and bearing of smallpox in the Second Amendment anywhere.