True, and that is the nature of law and courts. It is an adversarial process of two people with different opinions as to what a particular piece of law means, and one side convincing a third party that their interpretation is correct.
So the question becomes how did we get to the point where today the law says that there is a question as to weather a person has a right to own a firearm, and get back to the point where it is a given truism that an individual has a right to own a firearm? It certainly will take a lot more than reading a piece of text from the Constitution and proclaiming this is what it means.
The Court should confirm the obvious instead of splitting hairs similar to Clinton's depending what "is" is,”
Unfortunately, with language not being a real precise tool, what may seem obvious to one person, may not be so obvious to another. Or as some people like to employ, the “common sense” argument, which in essence means you have no argument.
And let’s not get too critically of Bill’s ability to parse words, and don’t get me wrong, I think the boy should be tried for treason against his country, but am resigned to the fact that it will never happen. But he had that skill very highly developed and made it work well for him. We could stand to get better at it ourselves to advance our objectives.