Resurgence of the hard right in mainstream politics based on a literal interpretation of the Constitution should ordinarily be good news for individual rights regarding the 2nd Amendment. The Federalist association which provides that political-judicial base for selection conservative Supreme Court Justices should lead us to review the phrasing of this gun rights statement.
Amendment 2 starts with the phrase "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" historically referred to concepts like the citizen-soldiers of New England called "Minutemen", private citizens who assembled at a minutes notice to thwart actions by the British crown military in the Northeast. So the world of gun rights was limited from the start to those freedom-fighters who should be allowed to have guns for freedom's sake. We all read of the Minutemen assembled from the ride of Paul Revere who became infamous in Lexington and Concord confrontations with the British regulars via the "shot heard round the world" and sniping at the British on their trek to find an arsenal of powder and weapons collected by the Massachusetts irregular militiamen or minutemen. It's a limitation on the scope of guns. Today we have no minutemen in the corporate United States of America outside of the National Guard in each state.
Then the phrasing goes on to reflect the concept of minutemen from New England to the colonies at large by stating the " right of the people". So confused minds in the past have mistakenly equated a colonial national guard in minutemen with "all" people when this isn't the literal case from phrase one. There is no mandate for all people in this stated right of Americans, just a militia in each State.
Then the right is "keep and bear arms" in the phrasing. Literally it's limited by the preceding clauses to a "militia" not the population at large, to those affiliated with organized quasi-mililtary groups formed to guarantee the security of each State or its foundational colony, not to be generalized to a then incipient corporation of 13 States but to secure Massachusetts, for example, not the entire body of United States. Current extremist 2nd Amendment rights groups use mistaken logic and America precedents toward National Guards post-Constitution adoption to defend everybody's right to keep and bear arms, a too broad interpretation of this right. It's convenient to ignore prior phrasing or bastardize the words to expand meaning to every citizen instead of just a State militia. Words and phrases are given modern meanings at times and colonial meanings at other times to justify a general right to keep and bear arms for everybody.
Then the ending "shall not be infringed" leads the weak-minded or partisan hard right advocate to demand no gun controls, no laws limiting anything related to guns, a universal call to citizens to arm themselves for security of the United States. In fact of phrasing, they interpret this right far beyond a well-regulated militia to mean anybody can keep and bear arms. It flies in the face of any 'literal' interpretation of the Bill of Rights (Constitution) that they rely on so strongly in arguments, it belies the practices and precedents (legal and otherwise) of people that anybody can buy and keep guns, it expands meaning beyond muskets, powder and colonial tactics of warfare toward independence, it distorts word and phrase and paragraph statements in understanding, either colonial or post-Constitution times and language to justify the 2nd Amendment applying to everybody, particularly vets, posse comitatus, anarchists, antebellum rebels and others dissatisfied with today's United States. The aim was to secure and defend 13 United States from crown sympathizers, foreign troops on continental soil, and insurrectionists against a new nation's birthing.
We all know there were many compromises made to enact a Constitution in 1789 within its wording. We may not know there was no Bill of Rights or amendments forwarded from the Constitutional Convention by founding fathers until it was discovered there would be no ratification in some quarters until more than American corporate and States rights were stated plainly. So individual rights were assembled in the Addendum Bill of Rights including gun rights for a State's militia. No problem I see in New England; more problems in the South which depended on armed committees to keep the slaves in check. I'm not aware of any American citizens who were former crown loyalists who posed a threat to the new United States of America by force of arms or otherwise. So the 2nd amendment was aimed at State security, not American security and those demanding unfettered and universal gun possession are whistling Yankee Doodle to hide the inconsistency and misinterpretation of gun rights through the centuries. Let's have reasonable and well-phrased limits to ownership and usage of guns domestically, all Constitutional.
Another thoughtful comment. Thanks for providing more detailed historical context. Check the link to Teri Kanefield's Twitter thread which traces some of the legal history of gun control.
Resurgence of the hard right in mainstream politics based on a literal interpretation of the Constitution should ordinarily be good news for individual rights regarding the 2nd Amendment. The Federalist association which provides that political-judicial base for selection conservative Supreme Court Justices should lead us to review the phrasing of this gun rights statement.
Amendment 2 starts with the phrase "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" historically referred to concepts like the citizen-soldiers of New England called "Minutemen", private citizens who assembled at a minutes notice to thwart actions by the British crown military in the Northeast. So the world of gun rights was limited from the start to those freedom-fighters who should be allowed to have guns for freedom's sake. We all read of the Minutemen assembled from the ride of Paul Revere who became infamous in Lexington and Concord confrontations with the British regulars via the "shot heard round the world" and sniping at the British on their trek to find an arsenal of powder and weapons collected by the Massachusetts irregular militiamen or minutemen. It's a limitation on the scope of guns. Today we have no minutemen in the corporate United States of America outside of the National Guard in each state.
Then the phrasing goes on to reflect the concept of minutemen from New England to the colonies at large by stating the " right of the people". So confused minds in the past have mistakenly equated a colonial national guard in minutemen with "all" people when this isn't the literal case from phrase one. There is no mandate for all people in this stated right of Americans, just a militia in each State.
Then the right is "keep and bear arms" in the phrasing. Literally it's limited by the preceding clauses to a "militia" not the population at large, to those affiliated with organized quasi-mililtary groups formed to guarantee the security of each State or its foundational colony, not to be generalized to a then incipient corporation of 13 States but to secure Massachusetts, for example, not the entire body of United States. Current extremist 2nd Amendment rights groups use mistaken logic and America precedents toward National Guards post-Constitution adoption to defend everybody's right to keep and bear arms, a too broad interpretation of this right. It's convenient to ignore prior phrasing or bastardize the words to expand meaning to every citizen instead of just a State militia. Words and phrases are given modern meanings at times and colonial meanings at other times to justify a general right to keep and bear arms for everybody.
Then the ending "shall not be infringed" leads the weak-minded or partisan hard right advocate to demand no gun controls, no laws limiting anything related to guns, a universal call to citizens to arm themselves for security of the United States. In fact of phrasing, they interpret this right far beyond a well-regulated militia to mean anybody can keep and bear arms. It flies in the face of any 'literal' interpretation of the Bill of Rights (Constitution) that they rely on so strongly in arguments, it belies the practices and precedents (legal and otherwise) of people that anybody can buy and keep guns, it expands meaning beyond muskets, powder and colonial tactics of warfare toward independence, it distorts word and phrase and paragraph statements in understanding, either colonial or post-Constitution times and language to justify the 2nd Amendment applying to everybody, particularly vets, posse comitatus, anarchists, antebellum rebels and others dissatisfied with today's United States. The aim was to secure and defend 13 United States from crown sympathizers, foreign troops on continental soil, and insurrectionists against a new nation's birthing.
We all know there were many compromises made to enact a Constitution in 1789 within its wording. We may not know there was no Bill of Rights or amendments forwarded from the Constitutional Convention by founding fathers until it was discovered there would be no ratification in some quarters until more than American corporate and States rights were stated plainly. So individual rights were assembled in the Addendum Bill of Rights including gun rights for a State's militia. No problem I see in New England; more problems in the South which depended on armed committees to keep the slaves in check. I'm not aware of any American citizens who were former crown loyalists who posed a threat to the new United States of America by force of arms or otherwise. So the 2nd amendment was aimed at State security, not American security and those demanding unfettered and universal gun possession are whistling Yankee Doodle to hide the inconsistency and misinterpretation of gun rights through the centuries. Let's have reasonable and well-phrased limits to ownership and usage of guns domestically, all Constitutional.
Another thoughtful comment. Thanks for providing more detailed historical context. Check the link to Teri Kanefield's Twitter thread which traces some of the legal history of gun control.