[Ignatz]

“That’s a tall order in a country where gun ownership for recreational shooting and self-defense is wildly popular.”

Missing the mark by so far it has to be intentional.

The second amendment has nothing to do with either of those things, and everything to do with regulating the US militia (read “armed forces “).

[dr_lew]

The second amendment has nothing to do with either of those things, and everything to do with regulating the US militia (read “armed forces “).

But personal ownership of firearms was an unquestioned right at that time, covered properly by Article IX Concerning Rights not Enumerated.

The Second Amendment went BEYOND this ( literally ) unquestioned right, and affirmed the right of states to support their own militias.

So I would deny that it has "nothing to do" with the private ownership of firearms.

[matthew fuller]

"The second amendment has nothing to do with either of those things, and everything to do with regulating the US militia (read “armed forces “). "

(read “armed CITIZENS “).

[publiusF27]

Justice Scalia said that the "core lawful purpose" of the second amendment was self-defense.