What is this statement saying?

[Donerail]

There was a broad consensus that the correct answer was the first one before the cow lobby undertook a massive campaign (endowing professorships, getting pieces placed in law reviews, etc.) to redefine the terms starting in the 60s.

[Donerail]

the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

[Donerail]

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

[Donerail]

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.

All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.

[Donerail]

All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

Stare decisis is the typical answer here — the point of obeying precedent is to give some stability and predictability to the whole apparatus. If a higher court has already decided what this word in this statute means, that stands as its definition, unless your case can be distinguished in some way.

But the truth is, there's really nothing in place to stop you from reinterpreting anything, so long as you can convince five justices to go along with it. One can torture language to find a right to privacy rooted in penumbras and emanations, just as one can torture language (and history) to decide that the Founders contemplated men "bearing arms" against rabbits and deer. All depends on how persuasive your arguments are and how they accord with the priors of the justices.