comment: >
  
  U.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.
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. >
  
  The bill of rights is clear.  The difficulty is transferring broad freedoms to modern times.  
  After the revolutionary war, there were privately owned warships.  Which were the pinnacle of military technology at the time.  The second amendment has to be toned down from that level of freedom, as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs. >
  
  
  as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs.
  
  An ICBM is basically a lifting body with reentry capability. So yeah, we absolutely want SpaceX to build those - that's their entire purpose.
  The whole space race was basically the US and Soviets showing off rocketry capabilities because a warhead that doesn't go where you want isn't worth anything.
  Welcome to the world of dual-use technology and why economic sanctions and nonproliferation efforts are so complex. >
  
  I'm not trying to split hairs, I was trying to point out dual-use. We want SpaceX to build and operate lifting bodies that can reenter, which only really differ from ICBMs in the payload. If your point is that we don't want SpaceX to have nuclear warheads to put on top of its lifters, sure, but that's a control of the warheads, not the rockets.
  And yeah, a nuke is "valuable" in a money sense, but in the context of the Space Race/Cold War/MAD, a massively inaccurate delivery vehicle can't operate as an effective deterrent and so is largely strategically worthless. That's more what I was trying to get across. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally.
  That's the "test", not whom it applies to. 
  >That's why the defendant LOST in Miller.
  The defendant lost because that person was an individual? That's pretty novel, and the Court does not say that...
  If the Court in Miller so clearly elucidated a collective right for a militia, it's awfully cagey and arcane about it. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  
  That's not a First Amendment issue. It would be to ban state government agencies from entering into deals with people just for advocating for a boycott though.
  But, business practices themselves are not protected speech.
  The government can say contractors can't hire marijuana users, but have to be mum on employees that advocate for legalization. >
  
  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. >
  
  Gun ownership assures us of our freedom from tyranny. One of the first measures enacted by tyrannical regimes e.g the Nazis was to ban private ownership of weapons  this keeps tyranny in check. Do you think that Nazi Germany declined to invade Switzerland because it was neutral, I have some news for you, Germany invaded more than one neutral country, but the swiss had a more difficult terrain combined with the fact that people have guns in their homes as a policy. Freedom ain't free. Governments must be kept in check by the people. Why is it that everyone trusts the government only untill the other guy wins. If you are against gun ownership for people, go buy a gun >
  
  Crazy you think people with guns stand much of a chance against modern military.  It's also nuts that the right wing that is so 2a crazy also supports the most authoritarian politicians.  What a suprise it can be when one of them gains too much power and decides the guns are now a threat to them.  Just like history. >
  
  Ever heard of Vietnam? >
  
  Not at all what we're talking about .  That was us against a military backed by the Chinese and Russia. >
  
  Compared to the US military, it should’ve been an easy win on paper. >
  
  Again, not at all the same as a bunch of guys with hunting rifles. >
  
  Do they have hunting rifles or “weapons of war.”  I’m confused. >
  
  How many in the US have weapons of war other then the military?  Drones are the game changer.  Combine them with NSA sophistication, and there won't be a lot of hiding places against the government if they mean business. >
  
  People seem to not realize that they meant "well regulated" in the sense that the militia would be able to be in effective shape to fight when needed.
  Basically this translates to sating "citizens should be capable of owning the same equipment as the nations military and be able to use it effectively when needed"
  Alot of people also don't realize that they may not be in the military but if they are able to fight they are considered to fall in what is called the "unorganized militia"
  These two things being forgotten or ignored are the reason people keep disagree on the 2nd amendment. They don't understand what it means in the eyes of our founding fathers, and they don't understand where they fully stand in this nation when it comes to these definitions.
  Long story short: People disagree because they put very little time and energy into thoughts that spew out their mouth. >
  
  Isn't it funny how people don't seem to know and understand that able bodied men from 18-45 are in fact members of an unorganized militia by US Code and can be pressed into service. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  Why cant Americans seem to agree on what the 2nd Amendment says
  
  Because we can't repeal it. Getting the congressional majority required to repeal the second amendment is basically impossible in our current government system and distribution of beliefs. You would need 2/3 of congress to agree to get rid of it. That's an impossible ask.
  So because we can't REPEAL it... we have to live under it. That means that progressives will lobby for regulation like national registration, background checks, taking guns from criminals and abusers, and up to outright bans on certain types of firearms or just banning firearms.
  The only way for such policies to work, is if we INTERPRET the 2nd amendment to mean that "firearm ownership can be regulated". The progressives stick to terms like, "well regulated militia" and various other limits put on things like "free speech"/etc.
  The conservatives, cling to the "shall not be infringed" and then we all meet in the middle to call each other names.
  
  Laws are interpreted. If they were objective and ontological.. we'd have computers handling court cases instead of judges. >
  
  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. >
  
  SCOTUS Justice Berger: "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Source. >
  
  Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I dunno how much more clear it needs to be. If " the people" are the ones who form the militia. Also the founders were very clear and forward with the threat of government overreach and becoming tyrants hence the, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And how would they do that? With guns. You don't think a tyrannical government is just going to say you know what your right we will just step down.  You won't ever get our guns. Ever. >
  
  They meant for everyone to have muskets cause bears and wolves and shit. It's debatable what they would've said with the available information of our time but to assume that you know they would have stood by 2A is bullshit...that they would stand by their wording of the second amendment even in the situation where firearms have become the leading cause of death for our children. There are 120 guns for every 100 people in America, all of them more powerful than they could imagine at the time. I'm not in favor of taking them away from lawful owners, but a semantic defense of the wording starts to seem pretty lame when our kids are scared they'll be shot for going to school and both the data and the events they represent prove that they should be. Nope, gotta go by the words people said 200 years ago! Well, we already regulate plenty of guns away from private citizens and we might decide to do AR's again, we will just have to see. 
  From the article, emphasis mine:
  "The previous analysis, which examined data through 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age. Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group (Figure 1). From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death." >
  
  So the article is about children not adults so its inaccurate in the way you try to bunch adults and children together, heart disease and diseases are the leading cause of deaths, also the article was commissioned and written by anti gun lobby and their doctors just research the doctors political affiliations and you'll see. Regardless your opinion that the 2nd amendment is debatable is factually incorrect it's literally written on plain as day, subjective interpretation and word play changing definitions and all the other nonsense people try to do is imo treason its written very clearly and obfuscation of simple words is just a tactic. And so important the founders made it the second thing they wrote why not the second to last or last of they weren't sure because they knew it was important for citizens to defend themselves especially from government. Your argument doesn't make sense because it was the second thing they wrote so be sure they would stick to it today. The wording is clear it's you that want to change the meaning becuase your political bias.  Also since cars are were the leading cause according to your political buddies article should we ban cars?? >
  
  Coke can Thomas says that Anita Hill is a liar and the first clause doesn't matter. >
  
  Because it’s super vague. The second amendment is the only one where the thing that everybody claims it guarantees, isn’t specifically mentioned. The word “gun” or “rifle” or “pistol” or “body armor” etc does not specifically appear anywhere in the constitution but it’s all accepted as a “right”.
  Also because guns are retail product and recreational hobby, so it’s a bizarre sell to say this sporting good toy is at the same level as voting, free speech discrimination, slavery etc. can’t think of any other “right” that’s a retail product and subject to the whims of supply and demand, capitalism etc >
  
  Glad you asked.
  During the revolution, private militias formed to fight. The continental army was maybe 20% of everyone. After the war, the articles of confederation stipulated each state had to maintain a “well maintained militia”. Sounds familiar. This was seen as democratic and decentralized. It had seemed to Americans that militias won the war.
  When the British invaded in 1812 the militias fled in fear at their technology, firepower and expertise. After that, debates began into forming a professional standing army. A few decades after that, our new army invaded Mexico and bombarded Mexico City for 3 months.
  As a frontier nation, safety and security rested in guns. This was part of the American way of life. After the founding of the states guard (national guard) the need for an armed population was unnecessary.
  The 2nd amendment was for a citizen army. Which failed. The 2nd Amendment is unnecessary with both a federal army and national guard. Unless you sell guns. >
  
  The federal and national guard is not of the people, while it is made up of the citizens of the country the government controls them and they only answer to the government, what happens when the government goes rogue and tyrannical? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And for that we need guns to remind politicians. Guess you forgot that governments can become tyrannical? >
  
  Because it's actually a fairly broad statement.
  Most of the amendments are fairly broad on their face and that was deliberate. The goal was to further refine things via the courts as time went on.
  If you take something as basic as the freedom of speech, what does that actually mean in a practical sense?
  Ok, so the government can't interfere with your ability to say what you want to say. Does that mean you can make terroristic threats? Per a strict reading of the first amendment, you should be able to do that without punishment. That clearly has some troubling implications so we add an asterisk to the end of the statement.
  What exactly that exception covers is a huge source of discussion and debate. Extend that to most of the amendments. The second is no different.
  It's a bunch of people trying to agree on what a vague statement means and that's never going to be clean. Especially when that statement has a metric ton of political and social baggage on it. >
  
  It is a matter of perspective. I for one, consider myself to be in the camp of those that hold that all Americans ought to be able to possess a firearm. The purpose being to serve as a militia as stated. 
  I am in favor of a rather "open" interpretation which would allow for hunting and sports shooting. 
  The issue for me then lies in the phrase "well regulated". 
  I feel that the founders must have thought that adding this "well regulated" language would surely be thought of as encompassing and guiding all future matters in which common sense must be relied upon.
  p
  "Well Regulated" empowers the government, be it State of Federal authorities to limit and curtail as required. 
  "Well Regulated" clearly places the final say not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the prevailing authorities. 
  "Well Regulated" clearly implies there should be made certain laws that serve to qualify as well as exclude certain citizens, should they be found incapable of ably following the "common sense" expectations of such a profoundly powerful entitlement. 
  "Well Regulated" most definitely means that should certain weapons or weapons related activities emerge, which posed a greater danger to the people of any militia, sporting activity or activities for the purposes of sustenance, rather than serving as a benefit, would be REGULATED, so as to neutralize any negative effects.
  Therefore, while a stauch Right To Bear Arms advocate, I am also a person that believes that assault rifles,  having emerged some time after the founding fathers time, must fall under appropriate regulation, especially given what must now be deemed our apparent inability to control random acts of violence against our own citizens. 
  Note: I said regulate them, not ban them. 
  This should fall under the same mechanism that dictates proper licensing. 
  Ultra 2A people: Please remember that the constitution is very clear. We may again see the days when you are "mustered" by your state for militia duty, but in any event the Federal Government has been given the job of regulating you well! >
  
  Regulated in the parlance of the Founding Fathers meant in working order not restriction through extra judicial federal regulations. >
  
  Keep in mind that in the 1700s it wasn't unreasonable for a nation to not have a standing army if it was not planning on going to war; if a king needed soldiers on short notice, he'd start conscripting peasants and hiring mercenaries. Armies are expensive and having them stand around doing nothing useful was a luxury.
  In the present day, things are different. Our modern technology allows us to keep soldiers around without going bankrupt, and the threat of military force is used far more than actual military force (see: mutually assured destruction). 
  Following this principle would be akin to bringing back cavalry charges and the musket line: a great way to weaken our nation and her power and influence for no gain. >
  
  You missed the point.  It is very clear in the state constitution that you have a right to protect yourself.  Boom.  Done.  The mention of the "need for a militia" in the US Constitution is the cause for ambiguity in the amendment discussion.
  I just pointed out that the state constitution is clear that there IS NO NEED for an army, unless there is war.  And, that nowadays, we DO keep that army.
  Your comment: Modern technology allows us to keep soldiers around without going bankrupt?  NO.  Money - $$$ - keeps them around......your and my TAXES pay for that.  And as for the bankruptcy, we already are bankrupt, but just do not know it. That $30 trillion debt.........is a clear signal of that. >
  
  A $30 trillion debt that does not affect us negatively in the slightest, despite what the fearmongers on the right tell you whenever they're not in office.
  If you're seriously arguing that we should not have a standing army in this day and age because of the opinion of some people 250 years ago, I cannot take you seriously.
  And because reality has shifted on whether or not it is appropriate for a nation-state to keep a standing army, who's to say that the notion of individual firearm ownership also has not changed? Both are based on documents written a long time ago that were meant to be updated as times changed. >
  
  OK.  We are done here.  
  " Why can't Americans agree on the 2nd amendment "  That was the question. >
  
  Because some people are debating honestly, and others are debating unfounded talking points. 
  Some people will tell you what the 2nd Amendment says, and others will tell you what they want it to say. 
  It is pretty simply, there is a WHY and a WHAT. 
  Why -
  A well-ordered Citizen Army is necessary to the Security of a Free People...
  What -
  To preserve the right to form Citizens Armies, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 
  Some will claim that this was intended specifically for the Militia. If that were true, then why doesn't specifically say Militia. It doesn't, it say the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare Arm. 
  Some will say is specifically uses the word - Regulated - but, this is very easy to look up, in the common use of the time - Well Regulated - means well-ordered and operating properly and in a well regulated Clock. 
  Some will say that - well regulated - is related to the Militia. That is, they can't regulate Arms but the can regulate the Militia. But it still doesn't say that, and that is interpreted OUT OF Historical Context. 
  Some will say this only applies to Muskets, and if that was the weapon of the day, then way didn't they specifically say Muskets? In fact it doesn't even say Rifles or Guns, it specifically uses the much broader and more inclusive work - ARMS meaning Armaments. Arms is open ended, it can mean Cannons and Artillery.  
  And, if we look at the historical context, they had just fought a war against people who tried to make the citizens powerless and under Britain's Thumb, among those oppression was to suppression of Gun Rights in a society that was primarily wilderness. 
  And if you are going to limit citizens to Muskets, are you also going to limit the Police to the same Muskets, and if not, why not? 
  You have to understand that Anti-Gun Politicians are not trying to protect you, Politicians and Oligarchs are trying to protect themselves and their own corruption. 
  If you can see the Govt moving toward Fascism, they you are Blinded.
  Early Warning Signs of FASCISM -
  
  Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
  Disdain for Human Rights
  Identification of Enemies as a Unifying Cause
  Supremacy of the Military
  Rampant Sexism
  Control of Mass Media
  Obsession with National Security
  Religion and Government Intertwined
  Corporate Power Protected
  Labor Power Suppressed
  Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
  Obsession with Crime and Punishment
  Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
  Fraudulent Elections
  
  That is the Blue Print for modern American Politics. >
  
  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. >
  
  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). >
  
  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. >
  
  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." >
  
  I think it's a small amount of people who actually think people don't have a right to own any gun under the 2nd amendment.
  The first part of the amendment is its purpose. The second is what it does. The intent of any law is extremely important because it can give insight into limits of the law. 
  In the 2nd amendments case since the laws stated purpose is for there to be a well regulated militia. Any gun ownership outside this context isn't necessarily protected under the 2nd amendment. >
  
  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. >
  
  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.