Reply #311: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [View All]

[Kali]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I am sure you have participated in parsing this thing before, but I've never really taken it apart and looked closely, nor read much of the legal desisions around it. I know somewhere you were claiming something or other about the courts...but just using common sense and reading it, seems like people have a right to their arms, that that right can not be infringed upon, and the reason is because a well armed militia (populace?) is needed for the security of a free state. The fact of armed individuals confers protection from tyranny?

So if you say some courst have found against it (which I find hard to believe else why can I own a gun?) what exactly did they do to the words? What I mean is how did they interpret what was meant?