Reply #27: The constructional argument is an interesting one.

[beevul]

But it doesn't lead far.


The Second Amendment reads :

"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".

Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”

That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.


Now, tell me, why should the second amendment should be interpreted how you appear to say it should be, which is contrary to my factual and real example of something constructed essentially the same, yet unquestioned in its meaning?