| Well, the amendment is definitely ambiguous hence all these discussions. And everyone interprets it to their liking. Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why. Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t. I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context. Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that: "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant. |
similar to the 3d printing issue, "back then" the production of a PMF was an achievable goal for anyone apriased of the technology, the use of modern smokeless powder steps up the tech requirements vs, manufacturing a blackpowder musket with twisted band iron approach.
the requirement of the right not being infringed, has the function of enabling the people to regulate the activities of a militia acting outside of its authority, as the final check.