A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – 2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendment is a two part amendment. There is the Necessity clause, and the Rights clause. The Necessity clause being: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,..” And the Rights Clause being; “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Gun regulation advocates tend to latch onto the necessity clause as a means of restricting gun rights. Firearms advocates tend to latch onto the Rights clause as overriding any and all laws that may regulate firearms. Both sides tend to give excessive weight to their side of the argument while ignoring, or at least discounting the second.
As someone who both believes that RESPONSIBLE citizens should always have the right to defend themselves, practice their sport or simply enjoy the pleasure of a well made firearm, I firmly support the Rights clause. But as I think part of being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner is learning about your firearms, about firearm safety, and about taking all the appropriate measures to ensure that one’s firearms are not used for nefarious purposes, I also firmly support the necessity clause and its implied regulatory nature. Thus, for me, neither side’s interpretation satisfies.