I don't think he's saying that, I think he's questioning that there is a specific logic in the order that those things are presented. It certainly reads in the correct order; was that intentional? It's been a looooong time since I read the Federalist Papers and the two Jefferson bios and one Madison bio that I have so I don't recall, but I don't think it was a happy accident.If you believe your pursuit of Happiness allows you to take a Life or deny another's Liberty, that is an issue far beyond the scope of the Constitution and you'll answer for any actions you take or promote commensurate with that stance to a Judge far higher than any Supreme Court Justice. Good luck with that.
That's true, however you're discounting the deep-seated distrust of organized government that under lies our founding documents, and the thinking of those who designed it. Viewing it through 21st Century eyes it's easy to scoff, but they all saw first-hand how an oppressive government operates; they experienced themselves the impotence of living under a distant ruler and his royal decrees; and they, a rag-tag band of volunteers and farmers, defeated a "well-regulated militia".The military realities of the time it was written no longer exist. We have a professional army for defense, which is something the founding fathers didn't envision happening.
All of that history must inform one's thinking about the 2nd Amendment before dismissing it as obsolete. The document is about principles, not specifics. The specific application is up to the courts, but the principles are sound and cannot just be handwaved because we're 200+ years on.