My interpretation of it in either forms is that it acknowledges the need for a regulated Militia which by its own right would necessitate citizens arming themselves.
That notwithstanding, under no circumstances should the INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms be infringed for any purpose.
Seems pretty clear to me.
“INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms be infringed for any purpose.”
Amen.
Joseph Story, the youngest member of SCOTUS, wrote “Commentaries on the Constitution”. He did one on the 2nd.
Three reason for the second.
Protect our border (happened during WWII),
Protect our property. (Think Rodney King riots and guns on roof tops.)
Protect our country from an evil government.
A “well-regulated militia” is 18th terminology for a militia that is able to practice and drill on their own, implying that they have their own weapons with which to do that.
A “well-regulated militia” is 18th century terminology for a militia that is able to practice and drill on their own, implying that they have their own weapons with which to do that.