General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Two words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing. [View all]petronius
(26,602 posts)The meaning of the second is pretty clear: the Framers believed that the ability to call forth a properly functioning militia is essential, and that ability relies on an armed (and competent) citizenry. So, the right of individuals to own small arms was protected.
However, what is "infringed"? It could be a completely hands-off, no restriction, anything goes sort of rule - but it's been pretty well accepted that that isn't the case for any right. They're all subject to some sort of restriction and limitation. So what sort of limitations are allowable on 2A before it becomes 'infringement'?
The second really is only about militias - it doesn't refer to hunting, self-defense, target shooting, collecting, investment, or anything else that gun owners mosty care about. The Framers probably took those things for granted - enumerating the right to keep a gun for hunting perhaps sounded as silly to them as enumerating the right to wear shoes - but it's not in the BoR.
So, that militia clause is really a double-edged sword - if all that really matters is protecting the ability to summon a militia, the arms that are really protected are those that a modern infantryman would carry - today, that's a true (select-fire) assault rifle. Gun controllers certainly don't want to argue that. But, if 2A doesn't really protect anything other than the ability to summon a militia, there's no reason to think that laws against public carry, or target shooting, or even hunting are impermissible. Pro-RKBA folk don't want to go down that road...