| OK, if I accept your argument that the 2nd amendment is only about the militia, then what is the militia? if your answer is the National Guard, that is ahistorical, because the modern National Guard was created in 1903. [0] the "militia", as it existed at the time the 2nd amendment was passed [1] was: > each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) so if you really want to hang your hat on "the militia" then the 2nd Amendment means women and non-white people aren't allowed to own firearms, and men over 45 need a permit of some kind? there's a lot of debate to be had about firearms laws, but grammatical nitpicking on this level is really kind of pointless. there is even debate about whether an extra comma changes the meaning [2]. another source you can look at is individual state constitutions. in my home state of Washington, for example [3]: > The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. drafted in 1889, and could not state more plainly that it applies to individuals. historically, it has always been an individual right. if you want to try to argue that modern firearms mean the right should be subject to more restrictions, go ahead. but don't try to rewrite history in the process. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Mi... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... 3: https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-con... |