@ragingloli My point was simply that you cannot interpret anything without knowing what it is. For instance, most gun nuts know, “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.”, They couldn’t claim a constitutional right to bear arms if they did not know those words.
In no way, shape, or form does any sort of interpretation or opinion on guns change the fact that 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.”.
You can fight over the definition of “well regulated militia, but “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.” is still written “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.” no matter how you spin it.
Love guns, hate guns, don’t care about guns, it won’t matter; it will STILL read, “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.”.
Now, if you can show me a ratified copy of the US Constitution that reads differently then I might change my mind, but until then, I maintain that interpretation has nothing to do with it.
The words are what they are.