Question about 2nd Amendment

[Mclovin]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not anti-gun or under the impression that any new laws or regulations are necessarily going to be effective in reducing gun violence, but there is something about the 2nd amendment I've never really understood. The actual amendment reads "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." My question involves the first part regarding "a well regulated militia". Doesn't the use of the word "regulated" leave open the door for certain laws to be put in place regarding this right? Or does the word regulated only apply to the "militia"? And what exactly is meant by militia? It just seems like when people bring up the 2nd amendment, they always just quote the second part of it and ignore the first.

[Pray_4_War]

The first part is only an explanation of why they think the right is necessary.  The important part is the second part where they spell out what the right itself is.....the right to keep and bear arms.  Not just keep them, but also to bear(carry) them.  There is no ambiguity about that part, it's very straight forward.  It is a constitutional right just like the first amendment, no other way to interpret that.  Certain groups don't like the right so they try to find ways to limit, undermine or encroach upon it.  Which is comical because that is exactly what the word "infringe" means.

What amuses me about this whole debate is that nobody is forcing anyone in this country to own a gun or carry one.  If you don't agree with the second amendment then don't exercise it.  Very simple.  I'm really confused as to why this is even an issue.  It's just something you can to if you want.   

[_aj_]

If the first amendment were rephrased with this same archaic phraseology, it would read, "Being necessary to the freedom of the people and for general literacy, the right of the people to have free speech shall not be infringed"

[T-REX007]

Most people have no problem with the "other" 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights - #'s 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 - which all apply to the INDIVIDUAL- Why wouldn't # 2 apply to the individual also- ?

Take away gun rights and the citizenry becomes really EASY to abuse, control, tamper with etc... gun rights SAVE LIVES !

 

[Tha Grim Lifter]

Sounds like the Bible, you can interpret it anyway you like

[Mclovin]

The first part is only an explanation of why they think the right is necessary.  The important part is the second part where they spell out what the right itself is.....the right to keep and bear arms.  Not just keep them, but also to bear(carry) them.  There is no ambiguity about that part, it's very straight forward.  It is a constitutional right just like the first amendment, no other way to interpret that.  Certain groups don't like the right so they try to find ways to limit, undermine or encroach upon it.  Which is comical because that is exactly what the word "infringe" means.

What amuses me about this whole debate is that nobody is forcing anyone in this country to own a gun or carry one.  If you don't agree with the second amendment then don't exercise it.  Very simple.  I'm really confused as to why this is even an issue.  It's just something you can to if you want.   

So when they use the word militia, are they just referring to the general public? Also, based on this straightforward reading of the amendment, what gives the government the right to restrict previously convicted felons from owning guns?