Yes, take out the term “well regulated militia”
That wording has been bastardized for a long time. I understand, that wording was only included to placate members that did not want the Federal government to have a standing army. They believed militias should be responsible for the safety of the country. I have to believe they would have been even more alarmed at the rate of Federal law enforcement.
We do not want to do that. Even though it took a long time, the individual right has been established and is not going be easily lost this time.
Some day, mark my words, the militia clause in the 2A is going to cut down all of the assault rifle bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. We my even get select fire.
Why? Simply because at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the militia was expected to muster out with the personal weapons of its members and with these weapons stand against invading armies.
That is still the presumed function of the militia, and to arm them with anything less than current military weapons is treasonous. To expect them to defend out country with effete magazines and hunting rifles is wrong.
Plus my deer/elk/pig/bear/cougar rifle is not suited to repelling invasions. Every state I know of requires expanding bullets for shooting game, which is what I use and inventory. But, anyone captured by an enemy will be summarily executed if he has expanding bullets in his possession. They are clearly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
Agreed. The Militia Clause does not grammatically change the meaning of the sentence. It is an explanatory clause, providing an explanation of why the RKBA is essential, but it does not in any way alter the relationship between the subject (RKBA) and the predicate (shall not be infringed). We're better off without that clause and with the rest of the Amendment intact and legally protecting our God-given right.