Unfortunately or not, “...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...” is an inadequately defined series of words.
It is defined by this claise, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...”
A militia must be equipped with arms of military utility.
“Well regulated”, in the common parlance of the time the term was written into the Second Amendment, means “well trained.”
You can’t train a militia with sporting arms.
> “...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...” is an inadequately defined series of words. <
I think that part of the 2A is rather clear. And I find it significant that the Founders put in “and bear arms”. Those arms were meant to be in every citizen’s hands, and not stored away in some armory somewhere.
For me anyway, the inadequately defined thing in the 2A is “well-regulated”. I take that to mean that the individual states can put reasonable limitations on the 2A, just as reasonable limitations can be put on the 1A (you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, for example).
But then the fight starts over what a “reasonable” 2A limitation would be. I’d say it would be no bazookas, and things like that. But an ultra-liberal would say make illegal anything that uses gunpowder.