A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
How can you possibly spin this into meaning anything but stating a need to secure rights? It does not command states organize militias or the people to be militiamen. It simply states a need or a reason to WHAT? See the second half---
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
As in, the already-existing, inalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms...
shall not be infringed
Shall = must
Shall not = must not
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
- actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
- act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
The ONLY thing the 2A MANDATES is that the Federal Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on the RIGHT of the individuals to keep and bear arms.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the possession of ANY weapon.
And, thanks to the alleged brilliance of the 14th Amendment, now no STATE can make a law infringing on the right of the individuals to have any weapon available.
Scalia did state in dicta in the
Heller decision that congress could restrict the possession of unusual
and dangerous weapons. Absent a specific example, I would limit that restriction to nuclear weapons, bio weapons, and other WMD. One can hardly claim that a belt-fed fully automatic light machine gun is an unusual weapon.
But, I digress...
**** commies..