> Please show me a single Founding Father that said A corpus analysis of the words "bear" and "arms" separately and together showed: > A search of Brigham You

> Please show me a single Founding Father that said A corpus analysis of the words "bear" and "arms" separately and together showed: > A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-w... * https://archive.is/TZAJs https://archive.is/TZAJs Doing a similar search in just the works of the Founding Fathers' works would bear similar results. For a fuller treatment on the subject I will refer you to Michael Waldman's The Second Amendment: A Biography where he goes into this: * https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Second-Amendment/Michael-Waldman/9781476747453 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Second-Amendment/... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waldman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waldman See also my other comment about a literature review: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26951279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26951279 If you want to be Originalist† (à la Scalia), then ~200 years of legal history showed collective right being the accepted view; the individual right being present (not even prevalent) for only ~50 years. † Of course nothing in the US Constitution itself says that it has to be interpreted in an Originalist way.