Newtown Action Alliance uses 'powerful 21st-century linguistic databases' to prove that 'bear arms' does not refer to individual use

Were not sure how gun control organization Newtown Action Alliance stumbled upon this piece from The Atlantic from February 2020, but it celebrates the authors’ use of “powerful 21-st century linguistic databases” to prove that the phrase “to keep and bear arms” refers to military, not individual, ownership and use.

In a linguistic review of “Bear Arms” in the 2nd Amendment, 90% of the data, the phrase “bear arms” had a militia-related meaning, which strongly implies that bear arms was generally used to refer to collective military activity, not individual use! https://t.co/x06iHeb2Ye

— Newtown Action Alliance (@NewtownAction) January 26, 2022

Here’s an overview of the study:

In the 12 years since [the Heller] decision, scholars have gained access to a new research tool that some hope can settle this debate: corpus linguistics. This tool allows researchers to search millions of documents to see how words were used during the founding era, and could help courts determine how the Constitution was understood at that time—what is known as “original public meaning.” Corpus linguistics, like any tool, is more useful in some cases than in others. The Second Amendment in particular poses distinct problems for data searches, because it has multiple clauses layered in a complicated grammatical structure.

In other words, the researchers scanned more than a billion words of text for phrases like “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Their conclusion on Heller: “Based on these findings, we are more convinced by [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s majority opinion than [Justice John Paul] Stevens’s dissent, even though they both made errors in their analysis.”

Linguistic review < Supreme Court ruling

You can make shit up all day long about what you think the second amendment means… But the Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue.

The second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

— Peter Morris (@PeterM878) January 26, 2022

I am the militia.

— why so dumb? (@youredumbdumb69) January 26, 2022

Fine, we are the militia. Now what?

— Kasey (@digitalspaz) January 27, 2022

Ask George Mason who he thought the militia was. (Everyone)

— Libertarian Squirrel (@LibertarianSqrl) January 27, 2022

Okay, you don’t believe in an individuals right to bear arms. Got it.

Why then do you oppose people creating militias? If after all that was the intent of 2A (as you say)…

Seems like you just don’t believe in gun ownership at all, which is fine, but why deceive?

— SomeGuyNamedRod (@SomeGuyNamedRod) January 26, 2022

Bro…the militia was composed of the citizenry.

Look to Jefferson's understanding of the second amendment if you are confused.

It's quite easy to understand, really.

— The Mexican Libertarian (@tangentsreveal) January 27, 2022

In even the most cursory historical review of the time the 2d Amendent was written, the militia was comprised of all able bodied men, capable of bearing arms. They weren’t issued firearms, as standing armies were, they brought their same weapons they kept and bore at home.

— Buck Leahy (@BuckLeahy) January 27, 2022

It's an individual right.

— Evin Rude (@Dujonechuok) January 26, 2022

Oh look, how cute! Keep recycling ignorance, you're good at it.

— Patrick Grattan (@PatrickGrattan) January 26, 2022

The fact that citizens could use weapons for self-defense or hunting was so self-evident they didn't even put in the constitution. It would be like putting breathing in the constitution.

— J.. 🇺🇸 (@IlovemyFreegum) January 26, 2022

And all of this is even assuming the search of “powerful 21st-century linguistic databases” means anything … the Constitution lays it out and the Supreme Court affirmed it. Try again.

Related:

This again: Target toothbrush guy David Leavitt wants to know why it’s easier to buy a gun than to vote https://t.co/12whVPOvhK

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 26, 2022