Given the background of 2A, the right to bear arms is part of the right to defend oneself as seen in English common law. That's why long before 2A colonists were defending themselves, with several armed, and because they lived far apart from each other due to the sparsity of the population.
It does not refer to restricting the right to bear arms but explains regulation of militias, which means ordering them to defend the union and for gov't setting aside resources to organize and train them. This was followed by the Militia Acts, which gave instructions for mandatory military service.
Infringement refers to complete restriction, i.e., one is not allowed to bear arms for any reason. This is obviously not allowed because the right to bear arms is based on the right to defend oneself, which is natural. That's why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it. The catch is that the right to bear arms may be abridged, i.e., limited for one reason or another. That's why convicts, for example, are not allowed to bear arms. Abridgment involves legislation and a majority vote. This brings us to the first half of 2A, which refers to the formation of well-regulated militias. Based on the background of 2A, i.e., the debates surrounding it, the drafts and revisions of it, and what was agreed upon when it was ratified, regulated militias were needed because the Continental Army was too small and framers wanted to avoid a large, standing army. The solution was to form militias to be regulated by the gov't with male citizens forced to join them. The instruction for organizing these militias and their purpose are given in Art. 1 Sec. 8. The details on mandatory service are given in the Militia Acts. How is this connected to the second half of 2A? It seems that the right to bear arms, which is based on the natural right to defend oneself, was used to justify the formation of regulated militias. If they had meant to give two independent points, then one of them should have been placed in a separate statement. The problem is that even as early as the Revolutionary War, generals like Washington were complaining about the poor training and lack of discipline of some militias, and in the War of 1812, they realized that they needed more than reserves to deal with larger professional armies. Thus, they increased the size of the standing army and professionalized training for more complexity, including artillery units and navies. With the final Militia Act of 1903, they eventually formed the National Guard and focused on conscription rather than militia training. Currently, they are using the Selective Service System, which requires male citizens to register, with the gov't given the option to conscript them when needed in the future.
haha, yes, it is the Context that is limited. You are simply Wrong and have nothing but fallacy for rebuttal.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
While the bots seem to get better every day, they still don't actually understand language or have any actual cognitive ability.
Okay, so...where's the language that allows the general government to restrict the possession of arms?
Yeah its amazing places like the U of Cincinnati, Northern Ky University and Cornell University invited me to lecture their law schools on the second amendment. I guess you did the same at say Harvard, Yale and Chicago?
Technology is getting better-we will have guys like the dude in ALIENS that played the knife game on the lunch table.
No, not in the federal districts. I was referring to the people of the several states. Where's the language that allows the general government to restrict the possession of arms?
How much money was involved? Why is it that you have to resort to appeals to ignorance instead of valid argument.
But does not operate to modify or limit the operative clause which for ease of understanding can be read by itself and still retain the same meaning.
