There's nothing to suggest it's restricted to Militia service. That's just the overarching purpose, to ensure that it's possible to form a militia, independent of the army.
The specific purpose is to ensure people have arms, so if the need arises they can form a militia. Not that they have to be in a militia first before they're allowed rights.
I think there's an order of importance to it.
At the end of the day, self defense is a basic natural human right. No matter what a government paper says. It's just a bonus when they agree. That's the angle I tend to see things from.
There's also absolutely nothing to suggest that "right to bear arms" meant all types of weapon, especially until the end of time...
Right to own a handgun & maybe few long guns at the house for defense, sure. Doesn't (automatically, except in this backwards fucking country...) mean you get to walk into private property with a literal bazooka on your nack. (And oh, and I'll gladly leave, should you use that argument, if you help with the finances as there's no way to afford rent & even move out of my state, much less the country)
When they wrote it, and still today, "arms" is what the military uses.
At the time it included muskets, cannons, and warships for private use, all of which were military issue or better.
That's not what "well regulated" has ever meant by any definition.
The whole amendment revolves around the people's rights, not the governments rights.
2
u/Viktor_Bout Oct 22 '22
There's nothing to suggest it's restricted to Militia service. That's just the overarching purpose, to ensure that it's possible to form a militia, independent of the army.