NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense

[flamin lib]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-gun-rights-st-0607-20150605-story.html

Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association's claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment's exact language — "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."

Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
====
To prove that this is the only interpretation that makes sense, try using the exact language and sentence structure from the Second Amendment applied to another subject — A democratically elected Congress being necessary for a secure and free State, the right of the People to enact legislation shall not be infringed.

If the introductory phrase is ignored in the same erroneous way it was with the Second Amendment, the above law would mean that every individual, and not Congress, was entitled to make and follow his own laws and to hell with everyone else.

Or this — The Air Force's arsenal of nuclear weapons being necessary to ensure the defense of the United States, the right of the People to build weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.

Until the Supreme Court, the one that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech, changes in structure such obvious arguments are relegated to opinion columns and not the law of the land.

[HassleCat]

1. Membership

I was in the NRA 35 years ago. It was similar to today's NRA, but there were many more members who were collectors, hunters, target shooters, etc. There wasn't so much emphasis on being heavily armed with advanced weapons to kill advancing hordes of Chinese troops, or young black men wearing hoodies. Then Wayne LaPierre took over, and the organization changed. There are many more "gun nuts" in the NRA now, and some of the sane people dropped out. The unconditional reading of the 2nd Amendment appeals to the crazies, who demand such things as the unfettered freedom to carry loaded assault weapons into local restaurants.

[Turbineguy]

2. It makes sense

from the standpoint of boosting gun sales. The NRA has been taken over by pimps.

[DetlefK]

3. Back then, "arms" simply meant something different.

It meant being able to shoot 1 bullet per minute. That's not that big a difference to a society where martial conflicts are solved with swords and arrows.

Now compare a society with 1 bullet per minute to a society with 15 bullets in 10 seconds, compare it with hunting-rifles with telescopes. That's a HUGE difference. The level of lethality is wholly different.
It's no longer "1 person ambushs and kills 1 person", but now it's "1 person ambushs and kills 10 persons".

[DetlefK]

4. How about "The right of the people to own gun-powder shall not be infringed."

Congratulations. You now have the constitutionally protected right to own explosives!

[safeinOhio]

5. Correct, it says nothing about firearms.

knifes, swords and blackjacks are illegal most places(at least certain kind) and the NRA is pretty quite on those as well nuclear bombs.