Recently, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan decided to pontificate on the problems of originalism. This was a semi-informal setting, of course, and no one is shocked that she's not a fan of originalism.

However, watch this and then I have some thoughts.

Kagan talks about the Constitution being broad and consisting of "hazy generalities," which I happen to believe is a feature, not a bug. The idea here is that the Founding Fathers recognized they were building a framework for a government for the ages, not for just their age. Specificity would be used to excuse things down the road that they would never dream of supporting, so they used those generalities on purpose.

Let's remember that they'd just thrown off the yoke of oppression from an authoritarian tyrant. They weren't interested in opening the door for that here.

But what was fascinating to me, though, is that there's one place where there is no haziness nor generalities, and that's in the Second Amendment.

Recommended
Democrats Say the Second Amendment Limits Gun Control. Just Don't Ask Them How. Cam Edwards How State Supreme Court Election Could Change Everything in Anti-Gun Washington Tom Knighton

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"[S]hall not be infringed."

How can you be less vague? It's clear as day, that gun control is unconstitutional. I could accept the criticism of originalism if Kagan were making the case that those justices who subscribe to it don't go far enough, but she's not. She's claiming that, basically, the Constitution doesn't let her and her ilk get away with things they want to do, so they should be free to "interpret" it however she wants.

At least that's my reading of her comments, and I'm sure it's probably the same for a lot of  you.

The Second Amendment is incredibly specific. It makes it clear that the right of the people, meaning the individuals who comprise the United States, had a right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed." No infringements at all. Not ones that place only a minor burden or that aren't a big deal in some people's minds, but any infringement at all.

Yet despite that specificity, Kagan and her fellow leftist justices continue to vote against the plain, specific text of the Second Amendment.

"But the well-regulated militia!!!!!"

Shut up. The militia has a definition that has nothing to do with the National Guard, and it's not a limiting clause in the first place, simply a commentary on why the Second Amendment exists.

Let's also acknowledge that "well regulated" meant something that functioned properly. We know it didn't open the door for gun control because the only gun laws the Founding Fathers wrote were laws that required people to have guns for militia service, so sod off with that nonsense.

I shouldn't have to share this with a sitting Supreme Court justice, but it's pretty clear that Kagan, despite piles of education and judicial experience, doesn't know what the hell she's talking about, specifically as it relates to the Second Amendment.

Luckily for her, she's got people like me who are more than happy to educate her.