[salawat]

Constitution says nothing about barrel loading, smooth bore muskets. It says "arms". It's a fairly timeless umbrella term for "weapons or objects usable as such". The only people who have trouble understanding this are generally those who approve of the Machine gun registry being closed by having the federal expenditure to maintain it set to $0, and don't that as being an example of "infringement" of a Constitutionally granted right.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Love your answer, totally agree! But please don't feed the trolls!

[maho_hiyajo]

It also says "a well regulated militia" as a context where the amendment applies.

[tpmoney]

It also says “the right of the people” a phrase understood in every other part of the constitution and its amendments to refer to the individual citizenry. Notably, you don’t need to be a member of the press to exercise a right to free speech.

[Dylan16807]

> Notably, you don’t need to be a member of the press to exercise a right to free speech.

The first amendment says congress can't abridge freedom of speech OR freedom of the press. So obviously you don't need one to exercise the other.

The second amendment has much worse wording.

[tpmoney]

It has different wording but I feel like it’s only difficult because of the politics and emotions attached to it. If it said instead:

“A thriving community of professional musicians, being essential to the existence of great art, the right of the people to keep and play musical instruments shall not be infringed.”

I really don’t think anyone would be arguing that it restricts the right to keep and play musical instruments only to people who are already professional musicians.

[Dylan16807]

A rule saying you already need to be a professional is unreasonable in this scenario. But I think a rule that you have to engage with the community of musicians if you want to have a musical instrument could probably coexist with that wording.

[tpmoney]

If we go down that route, the "militia" in the US is divided into the "organized" militia, which is effectively the National Guard forces, and the "unorganized" militia, which is everyone not in the "organized" militia and are:

> able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

So I'm not sure "a rule the you have to engage with the militia" is going to get any better of a reading on the 2nd amendment from an "individual" vs "some group of people defined by the government that aren't 'the People' of every other part of the constitution" perspective.