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.
That is it, the whole text, in its entirety, as it is ratified by the United States of America. I shouldn’t have to say more, but apparently people can’t really read, so I’ll write an entire article on the subject.
Notice the lack of the ampersand or the “and” in there. It does not say a well regulated militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, therefore the second part is to facilitate the first part.
If the text said:
A well regulated hospital being necessary for the wellbeing of a free state, the right of the doctors to keep and receive funding from the people shall not be infringed.
nobody in their right mind would translate that to doctors having every aspect of their life paid for by the public. Yet with gun-liberty logic, it would mean that any doctor could buy a $10 000 000 villa in Hollywood, fill its garage with the most expensive cars and motorcycles in the world, eat exclusively at the most expensive restaurants and pass the cost on to the public. That is not what the text says and that was not the intention of the text. The intention is clear, just as with the Second Amendment.
Right now, people are upset because the AR15 has been excluded from the Second Amendment. This is not a new thing. In 1939, in the now famous Miller case, the Supreme Court decided that sawed-off shotguns shall not be permitted, with the motivation that it has no specific use to keep a regulated militia. In 2010 it was further declared by the Supreme Court that any weapon, past, current or future, that cannot reasonably be used for legal purposes by law-abiding citizens, such as sawed-off shotguns, shall be excluded from the Second Amendment as well.
AR15 has one purpose and one purpose alone: to kill humans. As such, there is no reasonable legal activity that can be performed with the rifle and as such it should be excluded from the rights to bear arms.
Another thing people seem to miss is that the text never mention firearms. If you’re gonna pick and choose the words in it, at least stick to the words written. Yes, you may have a right to have a weapon, but nowhere does it say it has to be a firearm and nowhere does it say any firearm, neither does it state anywhere that you shall wear it wherever you want, unregulated and unhindered.
It’s not unconstitutional to ban a specific weapon or a type of weapons. Neither is it unconstitutional to restrict how and where you can carry the permitted weapons. There’s literally nothing in the constitution against gun regulations. In fact, when taken as a whole, it actually forces regulations.
All it says is that people have the rights to carry a weapon, for the purposes of keeping a regulated militia. Not all people, not all weapons, not unregulated, not unhindered.