A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think it does matter. Trying to keep it in context. The writers of the Constitution did not waste a lot of words. They did not tend to throw extra words in there just because wanted to. They had a reason to put it there or they would have just said:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
They didn't do that.
The Constitution has always applied to the States. I don't know what "Well Regulate Militia" actually means in this context. I read this to mean that the Feds cannot regulate arms but the States can. I think it puts a restriction on the States that they cannot stop "the people" from keeping a gun in their home. But how much latitude does the State to regulate? Does this mean you have to be a member of the militia to be “the people”? Do you have to have training as determined by the State? Can the State keep guns out of the hands of convicted Felons or the mentally insane? Do you have to be of military age to bear arms?
I was carrying a gun and shooting rabbits and squirrels without adult supervision long before I was of military age. I did carry a license when I left my father’s farm.
I look at this as more of an attempt to assure George Washington had a group of people used to guns, armed and ready in case England, France, or Spain sent their standing professional army to take some of our land or put us back in colonial status.
I hear the argument about this being a personal right. I think that means the States would have to have a good reason to take away our guns.
To me, the discussion on automatic or semi-automatic is not about the Constitution. Would someone care to read off the list of make and models of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons available to George and his army? Things change. The Constitution is a living document, hard to amend but it is still possible to legally, according to the Constitution, change it. After all we are talking about a change here, the Second “change” to the Constitution. I think the flexibility in this is that the States can change their regulations as times change without going back to change the Constitution.
Times have changed. We now have the best standing army in the world. We no longer are worried about a stronger England taking the land west of the Appalachians or Spain expanding Florida. The States have their National Guard, who are well trained and way to experienced. Frankly, I’m not sure how appropriate the Second Amendment is in today’s world since I think it was intended for national security. I just don’t buy that George and his friends would set up a revolutionary group ready to take over from then if they got somebody mad. That is anarchy and George was not an anarchist. Some of the signers of the Declaration I’m not so sure about, but not the signers of the Constitution.
That does not mean I don’t have a gun and ammunition in my home. In Arkansas, that right is not going to go away anytime soon.
