At the time it was written, did the Second Amendment apply only to state militias or did it cover individuals' right to bear arms? If the former, why was individual gun ownership never punished? If the latter, what is the point of mentioning the militia?
The citizenry forms the militia
So then are you saying it only applies to the militia? Meaning at the time it was written, 18-45 year old white males?
militias are mentioned as the rationale for the right to bear arms. However, right to bear arms doesn't mean total freedom from regulation of the gun industry and sale. I don't see anyone complaining about libel laws limiting 1st amendment rights.
And exactly who would regulate weapon ownership? The federal government?
yes? why not?
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
Theres a reason no lefty can even touch 2A and states like New York have to do shit like pass unconstitutional restrictions that periodically get overturned to just frustrate that right.
>SHALL NOT BE-ACK
Cool random screen shot of words, too bad you homosexuals can NEVER even touch 2A and have to resort to sporadically chimping out and claiming its time to repeal it (lol) every time some MKUltrad incel shoots up a mall
>t. lefty
Every leftcuck focuses on the "well regulated" part but forgets the "freedom" part. Nevermind the fact that the important part is after the comma. Why are (we) even talking about this?
Well regulated simply means well trained, but that gives credence to it applying exclusively to the militia.
It only applies to the Federal military. No militia can be "well-regulated", that is referring clearly to a standing army.
Individual gun ownership is not protected at all. It is permissible where helpful, such as the frontiers.
the 2nd Amendment was understood to mean the Federal government couldn't ban firearms possession, but states were still allowed to and in premodern times there were quite a few gun laws especially in urban areas.
Shit bait
>It only applies to the Federal military. No militia can be "well-regulated", that is referring clearly to a standing army.
From my understanding, if it applies exclusively to militias, it is not referring to a federal army, rather the equivalent to what are now individual state national guards
>Individual gun ownership is not protected at all. It is permissible where helpful, such as the frontiers.
Why wasn't this ever legislated then? And why did the Founders individually own guns?
What are some examples of gun restrictions?
It applies to the people
>people form militias
>"militias are important so people are allowed to have gun"
That's what it basically says
What's even the point of including that part then?
But never blanket gun bans?
The point is to say why they should be armed
I swear a lot of you are fucking RETARDED
>As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build-up, the British parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies. King George III also began disarming individuals who were in the most rebellious areas in the 1760s and 1770s.
>"should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton
>Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia. Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army. Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government.
Long story short, the 2nd amendment applies to all US citizens and the militia bit is included so that people don't forget that the primary reason it exists is so that people can form their own militias and fight the federal government.
Restrictions like you'd find today such as no conceal and carry, mostly because cities wanted to reduce street crime. Until FDR's homosexualry however, there were no Federal level firearms restrictions.
"well-regulated" in the language of the time means squared-away or in goo shape. It does not give the federal government the authority to maintain a standing army, you brainless, shitlib pharisee.
It's very obvious by the way the sentence is structured that the people (as in 'we the people') are the militia.
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
This isn't referring to any specific militia, it is stating an axiom: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Given this axiom, it then logically follows that...
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It applied to individuals but only so far as the federal government was concerned. the right could still be restricted on the local level as frequently was.
Read it anon
>the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Well what the fuck do you want me to tell you? That the 2A doesn't say what it very obviously says?
At the time it was written, the individual right to bear arms wasn't a matter of federal concern.
Criminal law was still entirely a state-level matter, and until the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War era, the Constitution was only binding on the feds, not the states.
>Criminal law was still entirely a state-level matter
The Federal courts did not generally involve themselves with common crime in the 19th century, nor were there Federal level criminal laws back then, or any Federal LEA outside a handful of US Marshals. As with many other things, this was fucked up by progressive SJWs who passed things like the Dyer Act and the Interstate Kidnapping Act which were unconstitutional involvement of the Feds in street crime.