O
Ok, can we parse these words, it is fairly short, so should be easy:
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.
The first part called the preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," first off this part has no legal meaning attached to it, this is just to support their reasoning for the right, but lets break it down anyway. A well regulated Militia, at the time it was written regulated meant functioning, not regulation in the modern sense of the word, and Militia meant fighting age men, which is probably a bit sexist, so if you follow the living document view, should probably be read as adult citizens. So therefore the preamble translated into modern English should read something like:
A functional pool of adults who know how to shoot is necessary to maintain a free country, therefore:
Then the second part, which is the actual right:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some anti gunners are now arguing that "the people" mean the government, which I think we can agree is grasping at straws, since the term the people is used elsewhere in the constitution, and is generally accepted to mean the citizenry.
That leaves to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The courts have generally agreed that keep and bear implies right to purchase, possess, and that arms are not just guns, but include all the parts of a gun that make it work including ammunition, as well as lots of things that are not guns, for example knives.
This only leaves, shall not be infringed, do we really need to argue over what is and is not infringed?
