The issue of “plain language” shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, though you keep coming back to it.
For example, surely it should be clear what is meant by “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .”
Except, we have to know what “speech” is, and we have to know what the “freedom” of that speech is. There’s nothing clear in that.
Or, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So, you’re correct that the operative part of the amendment seems very clearly to be about individual rights. However, what is “the people?” The seems awfully plural to me, kind of like “We the People.” So, this clear language you see is hardly clear. It’s clear for you, based on what you want it to read, but it can also be just as clear for someone else, based on what that person wants to read.
It’s asinine to suggest that it’s as simple as reading the words, because you’re clearly reading the words based on hundreds of years of existing interpretations that even begin to lend clarity to words as you want to see them.
(And on a final note, I’ll just note that the Court did not incorporate the Second Amendment to the states in Heller, so as of now, this right only extends to protection from the federal government — which includes the District of Columbia, as a federal territory.)
1-Click Subscribe in iTunes 
View in iTunes
Podcast XML Feed
The issue of “plain language” shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, though you keep coming back to it.
For example, surely it should be clear what is meant by “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .”
Except, we have to know what “speech” is, and we have to know what the “freedom” of that speech is. There’s nothing clear in that.
Or, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So, you’re correct that the operative part of the amendment seems very clearly to be about individual rights. However, what is “the people?” The seems awfully plural to me, kind of like “We the People.” So, this clear language you see is hardly clear. It’s clear for you, based on what you want it to read, but it can also be just as clear for someone else, based on what that person wants to read.
It’s asinine to suggest that it’s as simple as reading the words, because you’re clearly reading the words based on hundreds of years of existing interpretations that even begin to lend clarity to words as you want to see them.
(And on a final note, I’ll just note that the Court did not incorporate the Second Amendment to the states in Heller, so as of now, this right only extends to protection from the federal government — which includes the District of Columbia, as a federal territory.)