Transcript of online chat yesterday
It's online here. Thanks to those who wandered in!
[UPDATE: the key is that the dissenters claim you only have a right to arms if you are in a WELL-REGULATED, with inference by the goverment, militia, which (they don't add) (a) conveniently doesn't exist and (b) certainly wouldn't be created by any jurisdiction that wanted to enact arms restrictions. They don't deal with the question of how much "regulation," recognizing the special meaning of that term, makes a force well-regulated, or whether a court is suited to make that judgment.]
UPDATE: David E. Young posts a comment suggesting reading his books on the 2A. He modestly does not point out that the Court did just that. Scalia cites secondary sources very sparingly, but cites David's book five times, by my casual count. The only other such source that gets in that range is Helen Veit. And Scalia also cites several references to framing period statements that are, to be best of my knowledge, only to be found in David's books. Given the citations in Emerson to his works (what was it, a hundred or so?) David gets the bull's ears and tails in the Second Amendment endgame.