\u201cThey\u2019re trying to take away my Second Amendment rights,\u201d\u00a0 say many gun rights advocates. But what do they mean by that? I doubt that a cogent expression of their thoughts would be:<\/p>\n
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. (some commas and capitalization discretionary)<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That is the official wording of the Second Amendment, and to many it is extremely confusing. Does it mean that individuals should be allowed to have guns in order to be part of a well-regulated militia? If so, is this militia supposed to fight on behalf of the government or should it be a \u201ccitizens\u2019 army\u201d to protect individuals from a too-powerful government?<\/p>\n
Or is the militia component really superfluous, because the Amendment states, \u201cthe right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\u201d This interpretation would mean that individuals have the right to bear arms, period.<\/p>\n