Eh? It’s not the oldest such document. It’s not even the oldest document called a Bill of Rights.
Anyway, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it. I’m saying that pointing at the Federalist Papers is a fool’s errand, because they weren’t passed into law.
The historical background doesn’t matter. What made it into the BoR and the Constitution and the subsequent Amendments is what matters.
Sorry…just thought our constitution is the oldest example of such a thing currently still in effect.
I could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.
Can you clarify, what exactly were these two sides? The text was debated, mostly over things like a religious conscientious objector exemption. I don’t think there was an equivalent of a strong gun control movement back then.
Actually I said that.
See Post #95 for your answer.
Well, that depends on how you define a constitution. The provisions of Magna Carta which guaranteed due process and habeas rights are still in effect today in Britain and some of the colonies.
Or, a little closer to home, some provisions of the Great Law of the Iroquois are still in effect, and are even older.
Fair enough.
Close enough for government work though. 
And you are putting forward your theory of legal and constitutional interpretation as the only one. Many worthy people consider the original intent to be of importance in determining the meaning of a law, when the text itself is not sufficiently clear. Personally I find the text of the second to be clear enough not to look for original intent, but not all laws are that clear.
And where a word is ambiguous, what meaning should be put to it? Especially if the word is only ambiguous now, and had a clear simple meaning at the time it was drafted? Maybe the meaning the drafters intended it to have?
You do? Did you read Post #95?
Personally that cleared up a lot of things for me which is strange because it seems clear the 2nd Amendment is intentionally a fudge.
So, cleared it up for me that it is a fudge and that the individual right to a gun and militia notion of guns are both valid under the 2nd.
As such, since the FFs walked down the middle then the original intent is down the middle. Go with something like Zeriel’s notions in Post #92 (somewhere in that ballpark).
Historical foundation is okay for interpreting the meaning of a word. That’s not the same as interpreting a statute as a whole.
Yes I did read it. And it wasn’t the first time (or second or third) I had read that passage from the Federalist Papers.
But you are misunderstanding me. I find the text of the Second Amendment clear and unambiguous. As such, the intent behind it is irrelevant. We only go beyond the text when the text itself is not clear. And, to me, the text of the Second includes a clear individual right. Even if it didn’t, the right to self defense enshrined in the Ninth would guarantee a right to individual ownership of firearms for me as well. So I see it as a dead issue.
That’s one viewpoint. It’s one you share with a significant part of the Court. But it’s also one that isn’t shared by everyone.
Post #95 did not quote the Federalist Papers.
That’s what happens when I skim too much, sorry.
Yes, I read the post. Yes I have read much on the original intent at the time, including the Federalist Papers.
Apologies - I dashed off too quick an answer which turned out to be factually inaccurate.
Certainly. But they’re all wrong. 
I’d never picked you as a textualist.
I’m not. I’m more of an anti-intentionalist (and anti-originalist).
ETA: I know. Arsehole. 
It was meant as an insult. 
According to the King James Bible, Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me”. Clearly this means that we’re supposed to use corporal punishment to raise our children to be good Christians.
No, no. Clearly, he meant we were supposed to teach them how to masturbate.