"...shall not be infringed."
We all know how judicial activists have tried to (mis)interpret the Second Amendment to serve their anti-gun agenda.
I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to one of my "pet" illustrations of why they've in fact often made such wrong interpretations.
We can't speak to the founders but let's take a real-life historical event. In 1804 a Vice President of the United States and a Treasury Secretary fought that now famous duel in which Alexander Hamilton was killed. He and Aaron Burr rowed across the Hudson to the "heights of Weehauken" New Jersey where it occured.
What this primarily illustrates to us is not the idiocy of dueling. No. It clearly proves that these two famous Americans POSSESSED HAND GUNS! This duel took place 13 years after the Second Amendmet (and Bill of Rights) was ratrified.
Unlike many moderns they knew that the phrase "well regulated militia" did NOT in any way prevent ordinary citizens from individually owning firearms. Can there be a clearer meaning of how the Founders understood the Second Amendment than PERSONAL CONDUCT?