The clash between the First and Second amendments in the US Constitution – the First guaranteeing free speech and the Second guaranteeing the right to bear arms – leads into a discussion of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment from 1791, when the states ratified the Bill of Rights, to the present. Using a corpus linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, with a focus on "the right to keep and bear arms," and an examination of the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we see that, just like any other text, whether a literary work, a sacred book, or an everyday communication like a memo or shopping list, legal interpretation is always contingent, always subjective, and and always subject to reinterpretation.

The nation’s Founders have tremendous public appeal, and advocates of originalism, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, and the living Constitution, such as David Strauss, have invoked the Founders for support in their arguments for interpretive methods that nevertheless leave the Framers out of the picture. As a result, American constitutional theory has increasingly shifted its focus away from the lawmaker’s intentions. To provide a sound basis for the process of interpretation, constitutional theory needs to return to its historical core, which is an understanding of the decision made by the lawmaker in adopting the text. As a practical matter, determining that original choice will require an inquiry into the Framers’ understandings as shown in the record of the drafts and debates.