Anyone who is interested should read up on the Second Amendment and how the wording has been interpreted by scholars. It’s intriguing.
As one example, the term “bear arms” in old English law means “serve in a
military.” Before the U.S. was a nation,
the only military we had were militias. And,
of course the Second Amendment is careful to include that.
“Well-regulated militia?”
Regulation, by definition, is done by the government. Unregulated militias are illegal in our
country.
And what did the terms “keep” and “arms” mean to the framers?
It can be argued, in fact, that the Second Amendment has nothing
to do with anyone’s right to own a gun for hunting, self-defense, sport, or any
other personal use.
I am of the opinion that the Second Amendment needs
revamping. The way it is worded makes little sense in
today’s world.
Read up on it sometime. It's a fascinating topic of scholarly debate.
