Bonus points if it’s usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it

  • wjrii@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yup. I’ll go with the linguists on this one.

    Textualism and originalism
    A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.

    • mnemonicmonkeys
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.

      And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of “militia” in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a “well-regulated” meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.

      Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves