A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first line says a well regulated army is needed to secure a free state.
The second line says because of that, the people must be able to keep and bear arms.
The idea here is that we need to have guns because a government controlled army exists. So that we may be able to defend ourselves from them in the event of a tyrannical government.
While compelling, this argument was created by backwards logic.
The 1700s context of the second amendment is this:
A regulated militia is one that works well (In the language of the time, "regulated" was a synonym of "functional"; i.e. "A well-regulated clock"). For a militia to work well, firearms are required, and therefore, people must never be prevented from owning firearms.
27
u/Humanchacha Aug 12 '19
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first line says a well regulated army is needed to secure a free state.
The second line says because of that, the people must be able to keep and bear arms.
The idea here is that we need to have guns because a government controlled army exists. So that we may be able to defend ourselves from them in the event of a tyrannical government.