>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.
What did they mean by this?
SHALL
NOT
>>73234155
it means that the people of the 18th century didn't foresee drones, nuclear weapons, droid army etc etc
BE
INFRINGED
>>73234332
>who would need to own a cannon? Are you going to fight the US government?
t. 18th century gun grabber
>>73234332
why are you here
also before anybody says that high capacity & high rate of fire guns werent on the radar at the signing of the second amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
they are more than welcome to take the above reference as a cordial invitation to fuck off
so i suppose (You)?
>>73234155
it was a prank
also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
>>73234155
Most based amendment.
>>73234155
The right of the people is the same phrase they use in the first amendment. So every citizen have the right to bear arms.
>>73234155
Clearly they meant that only the military had the right to own guns, because if you don't put that in your constitution then how would people know that the military is supposed to have guns?
Imagine a world where the military went around trying to punch terrorists to death because the Founders forgot to remind everyone they were allowed to carry guns.
>>73234155
>What did they mean by this?
It means that to secure the state people must be able to own personal weapons that they could employ to form a non professional military force to fight the enemies of the free state.
To the degree that the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed in any way by the government.
They meant that members of the militia have an absolute right to bear arms.
But the important part is that it doesn't say anywhere that the government gets to decide what constitutes the militia. When the amendment was written, every male over the age of 18 was a member of the militia and therefore every adult male US citizen has the right to bear arms and that right may not be infringed.
>>73235639
>They meant that members of the militia have an absolute right to bear arms.
It says people not militia.
>>73234155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
