I happen to agree with all of those sentiments. While I fervently believe that people have a right to own guns, for whatever reason they like, I am also quite familiar with the history and purpose of the Second Amendment and know that Scalia's opinion in Heller was utter crap. It was, however, indicative of the vacuity of "originalism" as he espoused. What current research has established is just how far from historically accurate his opinion was.

I don't believe Gorsuch or Barrett are particularly principled, either. But the case itself presents an opportunity for them to show their true colors. Are they really "originalist", or, like Scalia, opportunists in originalist clothing?

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich