Originally Posted by KC_Lee
Fair enough, here's the full quote; "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."
Definition of a militia;
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
So again I ask, why can we regulate one explicitly list right (as the text of the amendement calls for) but cannot regulate the inferred right?
That definition doesn't even begin to make the 2nd amendment clear.
The 2nd amendment has always been regarded as foggy. The Supreme Court interpretations of it, have been very clear, and it's that anybody can own a gun subject to regulations.