My take on the Second Amendment
First, some comments on the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which were a pack of ten amendments several states requested before they would ratify the US Constitution of 1787. Note that these amendments did not provide these rights to the people, but were intended to restrict the capabilities of government to interfere with pre-existent and ‘natural’ rights.
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, by modern standards the wording is a tiny bit ‘irregular’. But if we add just one word, and change another to more modern usage, I believe the clarity of the amendment is greatly enhanced:
Since a well regulated militia
beingis necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Much more clear, at least to me — the first clause (before the comma) is not a restriction, requirement, or even a justification, but merely an explanation. My intent is not to change the meaning of the amendment, nor to twist it to my (or others’) nefarious re-interpretation, but to make it more clear without such alterations.
And according to the majority opinion of Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS), “well-regulated” does not mean an official state militia or the National Guard, but “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training,” according to the Heller vs DC decision.
That’s where I stand, IMHO and all that.