I'm a bit of a Constitutional purist, as you have probably gathered.
The second amendment does indeed state: "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."
18th Century grammar, spelling, and capitalization were more of an art then a rigid process back then. Nevertheless, the capitalizations of Militia, State, and Arms probably indicate some degree of emphasis. Modern US English would render the sentence with only one comma after the word State without capitalization, using italics or bolding any word for which some degree of extra emphasis was intended.
Most of the pro gun control crowd prefers to emphasize the first of the four clauses, "a well regulated militia" which to them implies that arms should be the province of the state government, who regulates the militia, and that citizens of that state should have a right under the aegis of their membership in this militia to keep and to bear arms. These gun control advocates assert that, as the National Guard and Air National Guard now function as the regulated portion of a state's militia (regulated by the UCMJ and under the leadership of the state's executive save when federalized), the arms under their control should fulfill the amendment's directive for security and that the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by non-militia is not so protected.
Numerous states have passed laws declaring all of their adult citizens to be part of the militia, thus obviating that argument.
The so far predominant interpretation holds that the central point of the amendment is embodied in the third and fourth clauses, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," as this portion of the sentence contains the subject and verb, which in English are deemed to be the dominant element for the generation of meaning in a sentence.
Pro-2nd amendment folks view this, therefore, as a clearly individual right that cannot be infringed by government, that the people (any sane adult citizen) should be able to keep and bear arms as their resources and preferences admit. To this side of the argument, the well-regulated militia and the security of the state are the product of an armed citizenry that cannot be "trumped" by a federal government because they keep and bear arms that can provide them the means to oppose such decisions as they feel are so tyrannical as to be broadly opposed (one dissenter would not be able to stop anything) and to warrant the use of force (opposition would require the risk of your own life).
Real purists assert that, as the arms referenced at the time were military grade (or nearly so), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the types, numbers, and efficacy of the arms kept and borne by any sane adult citizen. This end of things suggests that pretty much ALL efforts to restrict arms of any sort or in any manner is unconstitutional.
As to changing the Constitution, there are two paths. The only one used thus far is by passing a further amendment. Such an amendment requires a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majority in both houses of the US Congress with said amendment then requiring ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures of the respective states. This is how all of our amendments have thus far been promulgated.
The second choice is for 2/3 of the State legislatures to demand amendments or changes via the paneling of another Constitution convention. Such a convention could, with the historical precedent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, not only consider and adopt amendments (the original mission of the Philadelphia convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation) but could propose an entirely new Constitution. Regardless, this would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.
EDIT:
It should be remembered that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution and is concerned with governmental powers and limitations thereunto. It is not about hunting or target shooting or even defending one's home or person.
Were that the reason for the right to keep and to bear arms, there would be little or no reason for assault weapons, 12+mm ammo, crew-served weapons, explosives or the like. Hunting and home defense are far better accomplished with a shotguns, or with rifles of less than 10mm bore. Even the effectiveness of handguns can be questioned, as a shotty is far less likely to miss, especially in semi-trained hands.
But the amendment is NOT about that, it is a check on the power of government.
Bookmarks