It's comforting to imagine applying some justice to these gangs of violent home invaders, but as the second degree murder of Breonna Taylor demonstrated, adding self defense to the equation just makes the bastards feel that their shooting sprees are even more justified. Like sure I can imagine some kind of home defense product that uses a camera and robotic gun to dispense justice in the event of a home invasion, but really we just need to get back to having the rule of law in this country (where the violent home invaders go to jail with the other bad people) rather than thinking that becoming more adversarial creates a meaningful check.

I'm not saying this is a good example, and it's a rather disgusting one, but one vile creature held off almost 400 cops in Uvalde for over an hour. And there's not the excuse that they thought kids were going to be harmed as the chief said he thought they were already dead and his guys admitted on (only now recently released) video they wouldn't go in because they "weren't about to get clapped."

Always remember just how utterly silent the NRA is when a legal gun owner gets shot by a cop for having a completely legal gun that the current view of American law says they have every right to own.

I'll occasionally get paper spam from the NRA. When it contains a business reply envelope, I send back a note asking when they're going to stand up for Breonna Taylor - one of the most important second amendment cases of our time. I know they're a corrupt organization and it's futile, but their vacuous performative hypocrisy really fucking bothers me. "tHeYRE CoMInG tO tAkE yOUr gUnS!!1!"

> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State

The second amendment protects organized armed resistance against state-level tyranny, whether external or internal.

Can't have a militia of one.

(IMO) Unfortunately the current supreme court (as in, the precedent set like a hundred years ago that still stands) decided that english doesn't work that way.

I especially dislike how people will point to the private writings of certain founding fathers to support their 2A opinions, even though what was ratified by the states was NOT those private writings, but rather the very very short amendment.

The supreme court's reading is actually the only plain English reading that makes sense without altering the words (see sibling comment) or comma placement

You're misreading: the existence of private, individual arms is what regulates (or if you wish, what necessitates regulation of) the militia (which includes police). There is no grammatical ambiguity.