The Constitution of Virgina isn't part of the U. S. Constitution.

I have read it, and am curious as to exactly where in the Constitution it is cited as a reference.

You cannot simply decide that a point of reference is to be used when dealing with a self-contained legal document because the conclusion reached as a result of scholarly reading does not fit your worldview.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

This thread should probably be locked, we already have a thread discussing these very same things I am pretty sure.

There is an abundance of evidence in the following sources that the lawmakers understood, assumed, believed, anticipated or took for granted that the well established universally accepted common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution being made.

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution of the United States of America, reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Can you show us that in the Constitution?

None of which made it into the Constitution. You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again:

Where in the Constitution does it list such an understanding as a reference or a model of interpretation?

Amendments 9 and 10 clearly limit the size and scope of government to that which is enumerated within the confines of the Constitution itself. The document provides no means of interpretation to any branch of government, state, or citizen because it requires none and was intended to be read, simply, and plainly. It is your job, as somebody advocating a position of interpretation based on a premise that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution to prove exactly where your position crosses the line from historiography to constitutional law, and you have not done that.

Simply, you're an anti-gun, loose-constructionist who believes less in Constitional law and more in common law of British quality. Constitutional governance might not suit you, but it is the law. On an academic note, the quotations you posted in no way support your contentions, and would be infinitely more valid were they posted in their entirety.

You've obviously taken these ideas from a blog or legal journal run by the anti-gun crowd, and have attempted to pass it off as your own because you find the arguments compelling enough to defeat legitimate Constitutional reading. This is why you cannot defend your position well, and this is why you keep re-posting the same assertions.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Where does the Constitution say it's supposed to be understood?

Show us where the Constitution says it was intended to be read, simply, and plainly

Where does the Constitution say that's my job?

During the framing of the Constitution, a question arose regarding the meaning of the phrase that read, "To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies &c." George Mason doubted “the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.” Mason, an experienced lawmaker, understood that the Constitution was to be interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

The Avalon Project: Madison Debates : August 17

You have no evidence however that any of the founders accounted for or intended for a change in common law definitions. Thus, one can just as easily state, as Scalia did, that original intent and strict constructionism are the valid and legally correct readings of the Constitution.

Even IF your idea was correct, which is not, the definitions of the words "the people, "arms", and "right" have not changed since the founding of this country, and thus, the Second Amendment remains a protection of INDIVIDUAL liberty to own weaponry.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

So?

Huh?

Prove it, please.

That's debatable.

Excellents points from yesterday's TMQ article from espn.com:

I agree, this back and forth endless debate is ridiculous. You can read the 2nd about five ways, depending what your view is. And all the SC did was is toss it back with more questions.

More weasel-wordsmithing. C'mon, SCOTUS, sack-up and let's get this decided on, shall we? Considering the decision was 5-4 doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the issue is anywhere near resolved, which is what I pay my SCOTUS to provide: resolution and decision.

I stand by my opinion that the whole Constitution needs a re-write for clarity and modernity.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....