The 2nd amendment affirms TWO rights...the rights of a “state”..and the rights of “the people”
That’s why it written in plain english (of the day)...
What:
A well regulated militia,
Why:
being necessary to the security of a free state,
Enumeration:
the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms,
restriction on congress:
Shall not be infringed.
Translation in plain english:
The right of a state to raise a well regulated militia, and the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, both being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
Pretty simple...
They are two separate and distinct rights...
When you play the debate game with collectivists...you’ve allready lost...as they have framed the debate incorrectly...
It’s not what one plays, it’s what gives the grabbers an arguable issue, (the legal definition of arguable, not the lay one) and that damned, unnecessary preamble gives them that arguable issue.
Wrong. States have powers. States do not have rights. People have rights. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "rights of a state"; it DOES say that states benefit from having a well-regulated militia, which is best and most easily achieved by protecting the rights of the people to keep and bear arms uninfringed.
The Constitution delegates to the states the power of appointing officers and conducting training & discipline; if the militia members (anyone able to fight) do not have weapons, that power is moot.
Actually, 2A says nothing about Congress. The 1st says Congress shall make no law... (personally, I think they should have stopped after one .) The second says "shall not be infringed" and applies to everybody. Congress shall not infringe. The State shall not infringe. The County and Municipality shall not infringe. Your neighbor shall not infringe.
IOW, you can, in terms of the absolute nature of the 2nd, carry a pig sticker into the State house, a rifle onto the airplane, and a concealed sawed-off shotgun into the courthouse, and anybody who tried to stop you would be infringing.
However, if you assault with said weapon(s), there may be actions afterwards taken against you. Just a humble Constitutional opinion.