The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.
DC vs Heller disagrees
Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"
There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms.
Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.
The full wording of the 2nd amendment is:
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.
The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.
> Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
It doesn't seem like they agree with you?
I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".
That's neither relevant nor true.
The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority.
Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale).
Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis).
Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry).
Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.
A militia is made up of ordinary citizens. It’s armaments are those of its members. It’s not a separate body. For it to be in working order, the populace are the ones that need to be armed and their right to bear those arms must not be infringed.
Note that the militia angle is merely an additional reasoning for why those rights exist. It’s an example, not a precondition.
But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.
Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.