Because they ARE specifically mentioned, in context, it places double emphasis on the fact that the feds were not delegated the power to infringe on that right.
At the same time, it acknowledges that the people have a right to keep and bear arms which means that even the state cannot involve itself with infringing on that right.
As I said, the emphasis is compounded in that neither the federal or state governments were delegated power to control the guns of We the people, in spite of any Thing in any state constitution to the contrary, for the Bill of Rights/Constituion trumps state law.
As one of the people, I agree with the above statement.
Checkmate!
“We the people, in spite of any Thing in any state constitution to the contrary, for the Bill of Rights/Constituion trumps state law.”
You should read the State Constitutions of the New England States. They make no bones as to what their feelings were towards gun ownership. They are not nearly as ambiguous as the Fed Constitution.
Strictly speaking, guns are NOT mentioned in the Second Amendment.
Its “arms”.
Which means that that part of the constitution is future proof. When the best special forces in the world use telepathic Death Helmets instead of guns, your 2nd amendment will allow you to ‘bear’ them.
The Founding Fathers certainly would have included an enumerated right to vehicular transportation, but the notion of oppressing that right was so STUPIDLY PREPOSTEROUS they never thought of it.