[noiseman]

“Infringe” means to limit or restrict. Therefore, “Shall not be infringed” means “Shall not limit or restrict.” It’s an absolute right that no governmental entity has the right to restrict in any way.

The leftist fantasy that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military, because of the mention of a well-regulated militia, is absurd since after that brief preamble the amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms (which “shall not be infringed”) upon “the People.” While there have been recent hair-splitting legal exercises, such as in the Heller case, oriented toward determing who “the People” refers to throughout the Constitution, in no case does it refer to the government, or only the military. That would be absurd on its face.

[Ancesthntr]

“The leftist fantasy that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military, because of the mention of a well-regulated militia, is absurd since after that brief preamble the amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms (which “shall not be infringed”) upon “the People.” While there have been recent hair-splitting legal exercises, such as in the Heller case, oriented toward determing who “the People” refers to throughout the Constitution, in no case does it refer to the government, or only the military. That would be absurd on its face. “

---

The notion is also absurd because of the clause within Article 1, Section 8 that gives the Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This is authorization for private citizens to engage in acts of war against foreign nations...and, at the time, necessarily relied upon PRIVATE owners of ships armed with dozens of (then) modern cannon. If you could own cannon then, you can own them now. If you could own the latest technology long gun then, you can own the latest technology long gun now.

There IS no sensible argument against the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - only an emotional argument against what it represents (liberty and power for the ordinary citizen, at the expense of government).