He consults a linguistics expert? Sorry. I'd rather accept established U.S. Supreme Court cases when it comes to constitutional interpretations of the second amendment.
"Besides, the key phrase is ‘the right of the people’."
True. It's key because it reads "the people" -- not "all persons" or even "all citizens".
Who were "the people" for whom this right was protected? If you get that answer correct, then you're on your way to properly interpreting the second amendment.
Who were "the people" for whom this right was protected? If you get that answer correct, then you're on your way to properly interpreting the second amendment.
Sniff, sniff...
Robert Paulson, that you?
"misterwhite" since 2011-10-17
How did ya like that Kelo decision?
Shoo, troll.
The Founders were very careful about their phrasing, so going to a linguistics expert to parse out the meaning of the amendment is certainly a useful exercise - especially for those who keep tossing that militia word at us.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [parade permit laws] under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v . Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)