That's really the issue. The interpretation of the 2nd. Even though our esteemed Zeke thinks it was written with no daylight, it is interpreted every day by courts and prosecutors every day. Believe it or not you have to take into account historical context, textual context, intent of the framers and of course grammar. Every single attempt to infringe on our rights is unconstitutional when examined in the above light. First, rights belong to people. Never states or any government agency. The constitution always confers rights to people and powers to states and gov't entities. So understanding that the historical context of the document was an atmosphere of distrust of the federal anything they were making sure the fed didn't override the state's self determination. Therefore the 10th. Because the states were very concerned about fighting out of one tyranny only to be replaced by another. However, the framers were "natural scientists" that believed that the rights of the people came from God or nature, never granted by anyone. Whereas the king of England ruled over subjects by divine right. The constitution was written in a specific and exact manner to enumerate this belief. Second, the historical context of "well-regulated" is starkly different from what we think it means today. It's not that the militia should be "regulated", much less the right to bear arms, think of that phrase as "proper"... "A proper militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They were setting out the justification of why the people had the rtkaba. Make no mistake, when they wrote "free" they were talking about people, not a state as a government entity. They then wrote the only part of the clause that was actually law, the important bit... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The common usage of commas at the time almost renders the entire clause gibberish. So in plain modern language it would be written, imho: "Because a militia protects the ability of a free people to protect themselves from tyranny, people have the unalienable right to bear arms, and no entity has the power to infringe on that right" I would then add "since the only reason a government would infringe on that is to subjugate its people." I'm not making this up as it is a matter of intense debate amongst constitutional scholars. Additionally, in the very early 1900's the congress ruled that the "militia" is every able bodied man, 17-45 years of age in the country. It's called the Dick Act. Really. It mostly organizes the national guard like the regular army and mentions that the unorganized militia as everyone. The tinfoil crowd screams that the definition of a proper militia is that every able bodied man must maintain arms. That's a stretch, but nevertheless it does establish that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, target practice or any such shit. It was for suppression of tyranny and protection of the homeland. Pure and simple. But what do I know, not much. Taking a blasé security attitude by using Tapatalk Pro