as you want your militia members to show up with the same caliber rifle, same type bayonet, etc. If you show up with an oddball bore size, you would then have to supply all of your own ammunition, and wouldn't be able to draw from the armory's stores.
I understand your argument, as I see "well regulated militia" in the second to mean properly trained, as the militia would be called upon at a moment's notice to repel a foreign invasion, as due to lack of "immediate" communication, the news of an invasion force would be announced with the shot of a cannon from a ship.
"A well regulated militia," covered above. (Note comma at end.)
"being necessary to the security of a free State," Above comma is separating the first part from the second. Why? Is it just one reason/method to ensure the security of a free State? Why not just say the Army? We just got out from under a dictatorship with a free-roaming army that wasn't under control of the local government, and our founders feared a heavy handed central control of the military forces. They wanted the "militia", the common man, to have a say in the government and some ways to counter an overt takeover of the government. To keep the "State", free. (Again, another comma at the end.)
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," Who are the "people"? Are they different from the "people" listed elsewhere in the constitution? And that pesky comma, separating this phrase from the former. Part of the sentence, yes, but separated out. Why, again? The "people" made up the militia, and through history individuals and groups have jumped through twisted hoops to define the members of the "militia", but here, in this short little amendment, lies the crux. Is there an age/sex limit on voting, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.? Why all the effort to separate the "people" definition of this amendment from the others? And, to "keep and bear" arms. Simple, really. To "bear" then pretty means the same as "bear" now. To carry. "I can't bear it." "Litter bearer." Has the definition changed since I slept last? Same with "keep." "Can I keep that?" "Keep this close by." (Another pesky comma.)
"shall not be infringed." Well, another comma to deal with. Beginning to look like a shopping list. Wait, I might be on to something here. A partial list of reasons (clause 1 & 2), defining who (clause 3) and action to be (not) taken. "
s)hall not". Easy peasey. And you CAN shout "FIRE" in a packed theater, if the theater is actually on fire. (I know this statement is eventually going to come out, just doing a preemptive strike.) " b)e infringed." Can't ban it. Now, let's look at "regulation". "So, you want to give criminals and the insane guns, huh?" No. Rights from the constitution belong to "citizens" of the State (citizenship being redefined throughout history, as it should have been), and a person that commits a crime as defined by the laws of the state, no longer was considered a "citizen". An immigrant, legal or otherwise, was not considered a citizen until properly naturalized. Therefore, a person locked in jail isn't allowed to bear arms, vote, move freely, etc. "Reasonable" gun laws have made an attempt to "reduce crime", but they usually end up increasing it, as a "criminal", by definition, doesn't follow the law. Background checks are OK, as long as there is an instant "go/no go" answer, otherwise, you are getting into the "infringement" area. We have the capability nowadays to do an instant check, so why delay a right? You just have to make sure crimes are reported into the system.
Is all this so hard to understand? Sometimes, it seems so.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read