Mental midget Keith Olbermann, whose rise as a political commentator is proof that even a second-rate sportscaster can pass himself off as a legal expert on a par with a noted Constitutional scholar like Justice Antonin Scalia, has handed down his ruling on the Second Amendment.

Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn't very complicated: For the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed — the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon.

Well, Keith, let's consider some things:

1. Every other time the Bill of Rights gives a right to "the people" it refers to an individual right.
   
2. Every extant writing of the individual Framers indicates they saw the right to keep and bear arms as an inalienable right of the individual.
   
3. No source dating to the 1790s supports your interpretation of the Second Amendment, while virtually all of the jurisprudence and legal writings of the first 150 years of the Republic supports Scalia's view.
   
4. A quick review of the proceedings of the state conventions ratifying the Constitution (to which the Second Amendment was a response) presumed the right of private citizens to own and keep MILITARY-STYLE ARMS in their homes -- meaning that Scalia's opinion, if anything,failed to go far enough in protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms.
   

But fine, Bathtub Boy, let's have it your way despite all the evidence to the contrary. You certainly won't object to this interpretation of another amendment.

Despite years of fog created by the ACLU and left-wing organizations, that isn't very complicated: For the purposes of engaging journalism, you're entitled to freely operate a printing press. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of printing presses in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed — the hand-cranked, hand-set, hand-inked lead-type printing press and the quill pen.

And since we are going to agree on the understanding of the Bill of Rights as passed in 1791, let's not forget that insulting and critical comments directed against the President of the United States may legitimately be punished as sedition (remember the Alien and Sedition Acts), individual states may provide tax support to houses of worship, public sectarian prayer may begin any government proceeding, and capital punishment may be imposed for a variety of offenses, with no lower age limit for its imposition. Oh, yeah -- no abortion or gay marriage, either -- and sodomy may be punished as a crime.

Most of us, however, don't adhere to quite so extreme a version of original intent as you seem to -- or should I say as you pretend to, for you would never for a moment accept even a single proposition I put forward as parallel to your absurd proposition. Indeed, you would never accept even one of my parallels, even though your objections would completely undermine your position on the Second Amendment.

And there's the beautiful thing about our country -- they say anybody can grow up to be a an over-paid, under-educated, historically and legally ignorant buffoon with his own television show. And in Keith Olbermann, there's your proof, and every-damn-day's "Worst Person in the World"!

H/T NewsBusters, Right Wing News