It doesn't allow anything. It prevents the goverment from infringing upon a right of the people. Like you said, read the words.
“It doesn’t allow anything. It prevents the goverment from infringing upon a right of the people. Like you said, read the words.”
Preventing the government from infringing upon our rights is allowing us to keep and bear arms.
“allow: v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows. v.tr. 1. To let do or happen; permit”
Which isn’t to imply that our rights derive from the Consitution. They are God-given, and the law only protects them. Nevertheless, if it were enough that it is our right, we would not need any law to protect it. And yet we have a law, and it seems to be generally celebrated by those who believe in natural rights. They recognize, as do I, that though our rights can never be circumscribed by positive law, it is useful to use positive law to protect our rights. Madison was correct, theoretically, in arguing against the point on the grounds that it would tend to trick everyone into believing our rights were few and enumerated. But theory is theory and practicality is something else. And in that sense, positive law “allows” or “permits” us to retain our rights.
You can speak against it as loose talk; however, seems to me that generally those who believe in natural law celebrate the second amendment, even though it is not the right to keep and bear arms itself, but merely the means by which we inform government of its duty to allow us said right.