Corpus Linguistics and the 2nd A, and Heller decision.

[Crippledtrigger]

Interesting article about the study of how words were used, Corpus Linguistics, at the time of the writing of the constitution and 2nd and how that effects the Heller decision and both opinions. Since both opinions mentioned how words were used at the time it's interesting how this tool will be used in the future.

TLDR....
It's not short but concludes that Scalia was more correct than Stevens.

Why they just dont read the founders other writings on the intentions of the 2nd and rest of the bill of rights that says what they meant along with what the compromise in language desired by several states and realise the flashpoint of the revolution was a gun confiscation attempt is beyond me.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/607186/

 

[pvreb]

The Dem view apparently is that the constitution is a fluid document, to be interpreted as society's views change.

 

[Flash]

Interpreting it comes down the California thing I noticed a lot when I worked jobs out there.

Californians will listen to what you say or read what you wrote and then tell you what you REALLY meant as opposed to what you said or wrote.

Some called it "reading between the lines."

I call it horse shiat.

 

[Jack Dupp]

Californians will listen to what you say or read what you wrote and then tell you what you REALLY meant as opposed to what you said or wrote.

Some called it "reading between the lines."

I call it horse shiat.

Well said.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

Sigh

 

[smithers599]

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Militia" means "armed citizenry." Only if you use that definition does the 2A make sense.
Compare:
"A well-trained army being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Non-sequitur; makes no sense.
"A well-trained armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The core purpose of the 2A is not hunting, or target shooting, or defending against criminals, or even repelling foreign invaders. All those are ancillary purposes. The core purpose of the 2A is to enable the people to shoot American soldiers, should their commanders ever order them to injure their fellow citizens (and should they obey those orders).