Second Amendment Debate

Your memory is a bit off. The text is:>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 infringedIt's the only amendment that comes with a justification so it's unusual but there's nothing in the text that limits the right to the listed justification.

I would think this fits from a second amendment frame of mind.

I think it’s worth posting the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:“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.”There’s endless legal debate how this should be interpreted, but it’s not obvious that there was an assumption that there would be mass individual gun ownership.

I thought your 2nd Amendment was supposed to prevent that.

There is a reason for the second amendment.

> Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"?Because the former is pretty clear and unambiguous, and it is the part that actually describes the limitation of the power of the government.You can quibble over the meaning of well regulated militia and whether or not it is necessary for the security of a free state then or now, but that is clearly separate from the prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.It does

I'm not OP, but it seems to be an apt (and well written) analogy to the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, which grants:"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."The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assaukt weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief.

Seems like they could use the 2nd amendment there.

How about the Second Amendment ;)

That's why we have the 2nd amendment