Well, Roberts, I certainly respect your opinion. You seem to be a learned, well-spoken citizen.
I understand all of the arguments put forth at guncite and have read them before. The problem is that linguistics doesn't really function properly if you use obviously biased sources for interpretation. To interpret the Constitution literally and in the context in which it was written requires that one throws out all current discussion on the matter and disregard passionate opinions. I have a very passionate opinion about the government trying to take my guns. From my cold, dead fingers. But, in an academic setting dealing with a scientific study of language, I can not include influence from guncite or any websites stating views contrary to that. I can only deal with the language, and, in the English language, commas change meaning easily.
I cite this example.
My dog bit John's girl. (Someone's dog took a bite out of John's child).
My dog bit John's, girl. (Someone speaking to a female and informing her that the dog bit John's dog.)
Or how about this one:
My dog hit that fool. (A dog possibly ran into a man?)
My dog, hit that fool. (An inner city thug ordering his buddy to strike someone).
My dog hit that, fool. (Another thug talking about how his friend had sex with someone, which introduces slang, an entirely different beast.)
As you can see, from an academic stand-point, someone studying linguistics can not ignore the commas. Thus, my essay's interpretation.