this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
885 points (98.8% liked)
Political Humor
1682 readers
1398 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not how the courts have interpreted that old English. Rather that the opening phrase is an example of how the right of the people could be applied, not that it is the only way it could be applied. Language evolves, but that doesn't necessarily mean how we interpret a phrase written 200+ years ago should evolve with it. If you want to change the amendment, then you need a new amendment.
Nah that's how it was conventionally interpreted (as a collective not individual right). You're giving a c20 reinterpretation and claiming it was original.
I'm not giving anything. I'm just saying how it is currently viewed.
You sure seemed to be implying that that is how it was always viewed ("to change the meaning you need another amendment then"), come on now.
I'm giving my current understanding of the situation. I didn't come up with either interpretation.