Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

Every right in the constitution is subject to limitations. Including the 2nd.

If you don’t think there are already limitations on the 2nd, buddy, I got some news for you

There are. But there are many who argue against any regulation, no matter how effective or efficient, as unconstitutional because it's a limitation on the right. The NRA has even managed to get the first part of the amendment ignored by the court.

The "well-regulated militia" part? Because the 2nd has literally never been interpreted by the court as applying only to militias.

(even if it did, if you're a man aged 18-45, guess what buddy, you're in the militia)

The militia is armed in Article 1, Section 8. There was no need to *amend* the constitution to arm a militia already armed in the body of the same constitution. The 2nd amendment acknowledges the militia already mentioned, then *adds* "the people" generally.

The reasoning behind it is that in the even the government needs to call the citizen militia to action, it helps if people are able to bring their own supplies, including arms

Not quite. The arming, training and assembly of the militia is to be handled by congress, per Article 1, Section 8. The 2nd Amendment came about because the states feared the federal govt's power and wanted to make sure their people could be armed *against* "the militia".