[flagged]
The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.
If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.
It’s quite simple.
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why.
Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t.
I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context.
Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that:
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."
Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.
similar to the 3d printing issue, "back then" the production of a PMF was an achievable goal for anyone apriased of the technology, the use of modern smokeless powder steps up the tech requirements vs, manufacturing a blackpowder musket with twisted band iron approach.
the requirement of the right not being infringed, has the function of enabling the people to regulate the activities of a militia acting outside of its authority, as the final check.
I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.