Yes, you do, when literally the entire rest of the document uses the term in one way, and one way only. No, it wasn't, because the amendment - like the rest of the Bill of Rights - protects individual rights. And the earliest text was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person". But all of them include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I understand it's impossible for you to wrap your mind around the fact that the phrase "the people" refers to the people. But that's your problem. Your lack of basic reading comprehension does not justify taking my rights away. The writers of the Constitution were not idiots - if they wanted to say "the right of the militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they could have. But they didn't. No, it wasn't. Because the amendment asserts the right of the people, not the right of militias. Nope. It's proof that, in the planning process, there were many rights this amendment protected, including the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the right of the people to refuse to bear arms. Kind of like how in the first amendment, government is prohibited from establishing religion and infringing on religious freedom. No, it wasn't. But you can keep imagining that.
If your argument is that "the militia" and "the people" are homophones, when throughout the constitution they mean two completely different things, you have to show some other place where "the people" doesn't refer to "the people". If you don't, you don't have any evidence the phrase "the people" doesn't refer to one specific concept - the people. The preamble provides a reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms, just like earlier portions of the constitution like the copyright clause, which reads:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Does this mean that only works that promote the science and useful arts can be copyrighted? No. I can write a book saying we should abandon all of modern science and live as cavemen, and get a copyright on it. Just like I don't need to promote science to get a copyright, I don't need to be in a militia to get a gun. Those are merely some reasons as to why those rights or abilities are protected.
Please point to me another part of the constitution where the phrase "the people" does not refer to "the people". Oh wait, we've been over this before - you can't. I'll make it a bit easier - direct me to a part of the Bill of Rights that doesn't protect an individual right. I'll wait.
I think the bigger reason you don't see KOS anymore is they moved the kickoff up. Used to, 30% touchback rate was the best in the league. Now the league median is slightly over 50%. It's just not worth it to have a kickoff specialist anymore.
Hey, if we're going to play the "see who can bring up some obscure academic that nobody knows or cares about", I can play that game.
Liberal professor Peter Singer: "Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”
"I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments."
Why does anyone care what she thinks? You know what she's going to support, which is whatever the Democratic platform is. That's her job - to push liberal policy, not interpret the law. Otherwise she wouldn't be of the utterly insane belief that abortion and gay marriage are constitutional rights, even though they aren't mentioned at all in the constitution, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't, even though it is mentioned in the Constitution.
I'm actually as excited to see Cameron Artis-Payne than Funchess. I don't see us feeding Stewart 250 carries, in addition to however many receptions he'll have. I think Cam has the speed to be a great change-of-pace guy.