[strideashort]

Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly?

The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.

If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.

It’s quite simple.

[sophacles]

Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly?

The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.

Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.

Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".

[strideashort]

No it’s not.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

[sophacles]

What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?

[NoImmatureAdHom]

I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."

[sophacles]

And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo.

This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).

[SilverElfin]

A simple Google search would pull up explanations of how the amendment is literally phrased to grant an unconditional right. It’s not even controversial - the grammar is unambiguous.

[sophacles]

A simple google search also pulls up explanations of the opposite. And plenty talking about how the grammar is extremely ambiguous.

I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.