It reads:
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 certainly get the "shall not be infringed" part. In fact, if the Amendment read to start with "the right of the people ..." it would be damn clear. Unfortunately, we are left with an Amendment, which the drafters decided to draft with the opening words, "a well regulated militia."
Now, I know that the dedicated folks here will begin hitting me with links as to the "true" meaning of militia at that time, and the true meaning of "well-regulated." I have read all that stuff before, and it certainly pieces together an argument. It is not, however, very clear.
Let's assume that we are all part of the militia. In fact, some state Constitutions define certain age groups as automatically members of militias. Let's further assume that "well-regulated" means "disciplined", or "trained" as many of these folks woud say. Thus, it does not mean regulation in the sense of Government as we now believe. Would that still mean we each have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms? I respectfully disagree?
In fact, if one is not a member of the militia (which in many states is undefined), and if one is not "well-regulated" or disciplined and/or trained, then one, by definition, then one's rights obviously can be infringed? I think that's a damn fair reading.
Now, let's through out the militia term. Or, at least, let's go with the broadest interpretation. That would mean that all able-bodied persons could be a member of the militia. Thus, granting advocates that argument, we must still leap the "well-regulated" language. (certainly our Constitutional purists can't simply ignore the term, it was written in plain English, and does not "emenate" from the text). Well, we need to know what that means, and whose rights may be infringed depending on how it applies.
If "well-regulated" only means disciplined, or trained, then most people's rights "shall not be infringed." That's my view. It is also my view that the burden rests with the Government. Therefore, permitting a license is not optional, rather it is mandatory absent the Government meeting its burden that an individual, being a member of the militia, is not "well-regulated."
There is certainly debate as to how that is interpreted. Some states, for instance, like the home of the IRA in Virginia, will issue such a permit to carry a hand-gun upon application. Thus, one survives a back-ground check ("well-regulated"/disciplined) and one must also take a training class ("well-regulated"/trained). The NRA will let you take the class for free or a minimal charge is my understanding. The application is put before the Circuit Court, and the Governmetn must find cause to oppose. The process is quick and easy.
In my view, these reasonable restrictions are consistent with the Amendment in even the most favorable view. I frankly don't see how we can argue otherwise without ignoring the text of the document.
As for the Government right to restrict carrying on an airplane, well -- we certainly can't go to the founding fathers for that! It could be argued that if one is "well-regulated" and "disciplined", then no restriction passes muster. I think, however, just like "free speech", not all rights are absolute. Thus, while one may not use speech to incite a riot or to "yell fire in a crowded theater", the Government has to make a compelling case to restrict such 2nd Amendment freedoms. In this instance, the Government certainly has a striong argument that saftey prohibits such carrying, and like restricting some types of speech, the right to carry can be restricted once the Government shows a compelling state interest in the restriction. The issue is certainly arguable.