Ask Lemmy

Ah yes, because the founders wrote in modern American english that is wholly objective and unassailable in its original meaning. it is for this reason alone that no new laws have been passed or enforced since the penning of the Constitution.

Alright, we can discuss the first clause. Here is another comment I made in the thread on that topic: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4356959

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.