"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If you look closely you will see that the syntax of this sentence is incorrect. A well regulated Militia, a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, and then there follows a clause that does not fit in with the first part: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The two sentences do not connect seamlessly. Now, early in American history, it was well understood what was meant by the phrase. The gun law of the Second was the gun right of the state, not of the individuals. In those days it was common for the states to establish and maintain a militia (army) with this Second Amendment to prevent slave revolts, repel Native American attacks, and contain civilian rebellion.
After the American Civil War and certainly after World War I, a large federal army put an end to the militia of the states. It wasn't really necessary anymore. Times change.
America's largest gun association, the National Riffle Association, co-wrote laws to restrict gun use until 1977. Everything was focused on correct instructions, shooting training and above all safety. So until 1977. That year, a group of NRA members rebelled against the government and its gun-control laws and seized power in the gun club; the individual against the state. A change of direction is implemented and the 2nd Amendment was gradually turned into a right of "self-defense for the individual", where it never was this. The Supreme Court, which tests and scrutinizes the constitutions, was played with a huge lobby. Successfully. The right to bear arms is due to this misinterpretation now justified for individuals.
In recent decades, arms sales have soared to more than $ 30 billion a year at the cost of thousands of deaths. The 2nd Amendment has little to do with self-defense and comes under fire with every slaughter. Ammosexuals benefit.
