comment: >
  
  Many Americans have no understanding of the content and context of the constitution. Many Americans will defend whatever their party has said, no matter what their understanding is of that.
  This is what I have noticed: The louder they yell, the less they understand.
context: Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.
  This is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way. >
  
  I think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated. >
  
  There’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.” >
  
  I would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  The U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories. >
  
  It's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a "taking" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are "cruel and unusual", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!
  The reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.
  US jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying "yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying "yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments" is a massive "screw you!" issued by an unfriendly court.
  That's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th. >
  
  Ironically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court "discovered" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.
  That discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka "think tanks"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best "Conservative" legal minds to effectively erase the whole "well regulated militia" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment. >
  
  >That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.
  That's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on. >
  
  
  It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia
  
  The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument. >
  
  > The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument.
  Then it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. 
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. 
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia. >
  
  
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all.  
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.
  
  Miller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: 
  "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." 
  This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. 
  You're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all. >
  
  >This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  The Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  >until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.
  Maybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound. >
  
  
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?  
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  
  My brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally. 
  ​
  
  But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  
  Yes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here. >
  
  The 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. 
  It is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.
  After multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.
  That is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place. >
  
  Gotta disagree.
  For two reasons.
  First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.
  Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. 
  I would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt. >
  
  >First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.
  >Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.
  Read the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War. >
  
  Because gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.
  That goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans.   And that continues today.  Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime.  Yet political gun control debates are about rifles.  Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular. >
  
  Black people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. 
  It was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple. >
  
  That's the definition of political enemies. >
  
  How? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together. >
  
  Didn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. 
  Also, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug. >
  
  States didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention. >
  
  I think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions.  
  Also, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power.  States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. >
  
  
  Also, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.  
  
  That has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them. >
  
  The warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.
  It’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution. >
  
  (Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)
  That's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.
  The problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.
  Unfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, "may-issue" licensing, "Saturday night special" laws (or the modern incarnation, the "safe handgun" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most "gun control" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.
  But now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.
  And the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. "Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? "Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's "from the wrong sorts of people" guys or the "to fight government tyranny" folks or the "armed gays don't get bashed" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.
  So it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous "mainstream" position isn't really supported by law anymore. >
  
  Isnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. 
  That actually is probably the most widely supported view politically .. >
  
  I mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean "reasonable restrictions" to be "what kind of gun" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied). >
  
  The private navy argument is a bold take.  So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war?  Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?
  If you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line? >
  
  Bluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's "illegal" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.
  As far as "private navy" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.
  That being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what "ought to be allowed" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal). >
  
  Some of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution >
  
  The 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now. >
  
  No. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility >
  
  Judeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?
  Well, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me. >
  
  Marriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for >
  
  You sue the hottest super model you can find. 
  But on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper. >
  
  The 9th amendment kind of does that >
  
  This is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment. >
  
  38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. 
  No amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs. >
  
  Don't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at "militia" and ignore "the right of the people." >
  
  The people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. 
  The Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. 
  Let's try another compound sentence:
  "If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. "
  In your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first? >
  
  That's not what it says. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.
  The Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be "called up" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the "select corp" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.
  Your construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?
  Ninja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence. >
  
  
  That's not what it says. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.
  
  You don't need to interpret the "started intent".
  Read the words. 
  The ONLY reason that people have a "right" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. 
  Independent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. 
  I am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented "intent" to back up your position. >
  
  Heller disagrees with you.   Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause. >
  
  I knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!
  So:
  
  
  In which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified
  
  
  In which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge "define" what it meant. 
  
  
  Then tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's. >
  
  And I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem..   weak >
  
  Be specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).
  You can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. 
  No need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words. >
  
  First you dismissed what I said as "nra talking points".
  Second you dismiss Scalia as just a "Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge".
  That is ad hominem.
  Edit:   the fact you blocked me says it all.   Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room >
  
  The 2nd amendment was never "a problem" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. 
  Remember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. 
  Now history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile 
  
  “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible >
  
  It very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently. >
  
  As an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either.  2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. >
  
  Yeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting. >
  
  U.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims. >
  
  The US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy >
  
  Ok, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then. >
  
  
  Ok, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.
  
  There is no definition signed into law. People in multiple government agencies, mainstream media, and sundry lobbyist organizations disagree about what constitutes a mass shooting. Your own link states the same.
  
  There is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator’s motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.
  
  Obviously the people who hate gun rights prefer the definition that requires the lowest possible standard to qualify as a mass shooting. >
  
  The definition I linked is from the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crime Act of 2012; Public Law 112-265, 126 STAT. 2435.
  So it is actually a law. Sorry you're wrong. >
  
  As a gun owner and supporter of the 2A individual right to own a gun, I have never liked the way the Founders wrote the amendment. The preamble about "a well regulated militia" to some means the Founders meant to restrict gun ownership to just that purpose. That's false, of course. The Constitution was written at a time where hunting for food, and self-defense against indian attacks and road robberies were essential. 
  But my question remains, WHY did they phrase it that way? Why bother adding that preamble if private gun ownership and use was so common? I think that question has led to a lot of debate.
  Also, note that the First Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..." while the Second Amerndment is more sweeping: "...shall not be infringed." That points against regulation by the executive branch as well.
  Regardless of its construction, though, arguments suggesting it should be ignored because it is "outdated" are irrelevant. It means what the Supreme Court says it means, ultimately, and the only way to change that is by another amendment to the Constitution. >
  
  Laughs. They can't agree because they don't agree. There is a  hard minority that "likes" guns. Period, full stop. For that minority, there is no political argument they will accept, if it means giving up their "totems," for lack of a better word (and I spent a real moment trying to think of a better word). Then there's another minority, also hard, that believes the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that citizens are always able to rise up against an unfair government. That's clearly not what the authors intended, but it's at least a reasonable sophistry. Then there's the "safe gun" crowd. Those who believe that owning a handgun for self-defense is fine, that owning a low power rifle for hunting is fine. But they draw the line at military assault weapons. Where I live, open carry looks weird and threatening. Yoo have a gun. You are a LEO, Armored Guard, obvious security, or criminal.
  And that's why we cannot agree. >
  
  Handguns kill far far more people than rifles of any type. >
  
  I did not say any of this was reasonable. I said this is why they can't agree :-) >
  
  Gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies. >
  
  Um. Gun control doesn't have a single unified base either. If we did, since people who want less guns are the majority, we'd have actually done something. There are some very reasonable people. There are some very unreasonable people. But a lot of the current gun control has nothing to do with politics it has to do with body count. It's the outrage of Uvalde, where the people with the guns attacked the people trying to help the kids. It's about a society that raises a lot of unhappy kids, who have access to guns, and take them to school. I enjoyed hunting, personally, when I was younger and well enough to do that. But I was also careful to only kill food that I could eat. I've fired (live, blank, test loads and just dry) a lot of weapons, and I've never fired one in anger. I have no personal investment in taking away somebody's guns; I have a personal investment in living in a less violent place. >
  
  You just described what I meant to a tee.  If you actually cared about body count then you'd go after handguns.   But you don't.  None of the gun control advocates do.   It's all about disarming perceived political enemies.   And media feel goods for political points.
  There is nothing reasonable about the modern gun control movement. >
  
  
  If you actually cared about body count then you'd go after handguns.
  
  Sigh... Politics didn't start in 2016. Gun control groups did go after handguns, and were fairly successful. City-level handgun bans were on the books across the country. "Assault weapons" were just next on the list, but then Heller and McDonald said you can't ban handguns.
  So this "if you really cared, handguns" stuff is frankly ignorant of the history of what's been done and how far the right has come. >
  
  So successful just look at Chicago.  Handguns are the perceived weapons of choice for groups Progressive politics want to court.   You shouldn't have to "know somebody" to defend yourself. >
  
  That's a completely separate argument. >
  
  No it isn't.  Gun Control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.
  Now it's the Yokels in flyover country.  The Mulford Acts were politically active and violent racial groups like the Black Panthers.  Early Gun control was about disarming Native or African Americans. >
  
  It is probably the most poorly written words of all the constitution, poor communication is usually the culprit of most divisions. >
  
  Well, it’s not like the Republicans/MAGAs aren’t trashing the rest of the Constitution, well written or not. >
  
  Yes, the founding fathers did understand, and that is why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. 
  Look at our government. >
  
  200 plus years of our country evolving, the diminished importance of civilian militias in national defense, the light years in advancement of the Lethality and killing power of common weapons compared to those in 1780, along with an extreme militant right wing dreaming of  the day they can declare tyranny and start killing our elected officials to save the nation from...shhh...liberals. All contribute to the debate to what weaponry civilians should be allowed to own. >
  
  It's been distorted by the gun lobby who's only interest is profit. 
  It's also been distorted by time. One can argue that if you're an originalist that means the only thing the Constitution grants citizens is the right to own a muzzle loading musket. 
  There's also a lot of people today insisting that by "arms" the Constitution allows citizens to own any type weapon they want. However, while the constitution doesn't specify what arms means, it was a known fact at the time that every state in the colonies outlawed private citizens from owning a cannon. >
  
  The issue is that changing amendments to the constitution is prohibitively difficult.
  Those who think it is bad for citizens to have guns just happen to think that the 2nd amendment is about state armies.
  And those who think it is good for citizens to have guns just happen to think that the 2nd amendment is about citizen rights.
  The fact that there aren't many people who are inconsistent with those above statements shows that disagreeing about the definition is a proxy fight to alter the amendment outside of the established and prohibitive process defined in the constitution. >
  
  Welp, a bunch of gun manufacturer lobbyists really didn't want to stop making money, so they decided they wanted 2A to enshrine private individual gun ownership.
  Working backwards from the conclusion they desired, they pushed their agenda up through the courts, and eventually got a decision that skewed greatly from the original intent of 2A, as well as how that amendment had been interpreted for a century.
  Ever since then, debate has ensued. >
  
  Maybe stop quoting the Progressive/New Deal era court?  There isn't a decision from that era that is good.  From Japanese internment, to gun control, to Wickard. >
  
  The court has been corrupted by one side or the other for a long time. >
  
  Americans like to have asinine proxy arguments instead of just debating the issue at hand: should firearms be available to civilians and if so, what types and under what constraints? That debate involves making political judgements and Americans are scared of those so they have endless semantic and historical arguments about a 200 year old document instead >
  
  This question assumes that US citizens agree on the other Amendments. 
  Just some examples:
  10th and 14th Amendment- Is it a state issue or is an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment
  9th Amendment- A massive legal mind field no judge has ever wanted to use to base a decision on.
  1st Amendment- Should this be covered under the first Amendment or is it obscene under the Miller test. >
  
  For one thing, the 2nd amendment was vaguely written, The vagueness leaves a lot of room for debate. It was also written at a time when they didn't have they types of armament that we have today.
  The world in which the 2nd amendment was written looked very much different than the one we live in. There were no police, no roads, cars. If you lived in a settlement house you were defenseless without a gun. 
  For all we know they would have included the right to own a bazooka if the English had tanks back then. They might have included the right to have surface to air missiles if the English had aircraft. >
  
  One thing all people should be able to agree on is that it's a shit sentence.  It's possibly the worst thing of the written things ever. >
  
  It contradicts itself. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it starts out talking about a well-regulated militia so which is it? Why does it say "well regulated militia" and and "the people." >
  
  The problem comes from the bizarre construction of the clauses and the apparent self contradiction of both  regulated and not infringed. >
  
  Stop pretending the founding fathers were Gods. They were winging it. They couldn’t predict the future and they didn’t get everything right. We were supposed to evolve into reasonable people that could debate things and decide whats right for the citizenry in our current times. Unfortunately some of us turned into regressive anti-intellectuals who refuse to debate, refuse to compromise and refuse to try to make life better for their fellow Americans. We know how deadly guns are, especially to kids but some people would rather stick fingers in their ears and refuse to accept reality. Guns need to be regulated better. >
  
  How America could delude itself in thinking the second amendment, a relic from the 1790’s , justifies their obsession with guns and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that resulted, is an appalling mystery to the rest of the civilized world. >
  
  The issue is that changing amendments to the constitution is prohibitively difficult.
  Those who think it is bad for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about state armies.
  And those who think it is good for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about citizen rights.
  The fact that there aren't many people who are inconsistent with those above statements shows that disagreeing about the definition is a proxy fight to alter the amendment outside of the established and prohibitive process defined in the constitution. >
  
  The elephant in the room is that EVERY person who says “assault weapons” really wants to ban handguns.
  Thus, they want to restrict your right to defend yourself. >
  
  The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not a list of permissions for the government.
  You have to view the 2nd through that lens.
  If you really think the founders didn't believe in individual right to own firearms, it should be easy to produce their discussions on disarming the US population at the time. What you will find is the exact opposite. >
  
  Because some people really really really want it to say something other than what it says and they think they'll have an easier time convincing everyone it doesn't say what it says than getting it changed.