[theBuckwheat]

>>
The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left.
<<

It is not anywhere that easy, indeed may I suggest it is worse than you think. To a leftist, reality is but one source of the bricks, mortar, beams and other supplies which they can pick and choose to assemble and sustain their personal, alternate, emotional and mental reality.

How the left relates to the Second Amendment is a wonderful and very succinct, example. To a leftist, the words become easily separated bricks that can be reassembled to construct an Amendment that says what they want it to say. The words are the same, but the meaning is totally different. Not opposite, but sufficiently different that it destroys the true intent of the plain text.

Given the principle that he who controls the meaning of words, controls the outcome of the debate, leftists run up against words that are inconvenient to their desired outcome. Not a problem! Just change what the words mean! For example, "people" are not people in their Amendment, they are states.

Further, if you read the Court's opinion, you will find that the District of Columbia is not a State, so the Bill of Rights does not even apply! I'm not making this up.

Of course, that absurdity was necessary and convenient to argue for this one case. If we were litigating the arrest of an anti-war protester, of course the left would insist that if the First Amendment applied anywhere in the territory of the United States, first and foremost, it would apply in the District!

[Enterprise]

Thank you all for those thoughtful and insightful responses. Bobjam touched on something that I'll comment on further.

If the Second Amendment were worded today, it would read something likes this:

The defense of a free nation requires the establishment, regulation, and arming of a strong military. Nonetheless, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

For decades now, the right to keep and bear arms has been regularly infringed, and all of the laws which forbid owning a weapon, or carrying a concealed weapon on your person, in your vehicle, or in your business are "infringements" and are flatly Unconstitutional.

[Ken H]

Further, if you read the Court's opinion, you will find that the District of Columbia is not a State, so the Bill of Rights does not even apply! I'm not making this up.

Was that from the majority, or was it from the dissenting judge?