Liability insurance is not an answer

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. No, the entire sentence has been correctly interpreted.

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Legal findings aside, there is no valid linguistic argument for the "collective right" interpretation of that text. The main clause unequivocally ascribes the right to "the People," and nothing in the preamble restricts that right to any subset of that group. All it does is provide a rationale for the protection accorded in the main clause. Restricting the right to the militia would require a different construction.

As for things like RPGs and a tank's main gun (anyone can own the tank itself), those aren't "arms." They're artillery. Not the same thing. "Arms" at the time of the writing would have been muskets, pistols, swords, etc. The same definition of the term applies today.