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.
No part of the constitution is more misunderstood than this two-clause sentence. In fact, is it a two-clause sentence?
Some say the right to bear arms that is talked about here specifically is referring to a militia, and that it was not intended by our Founding Fathers to mean that EVERY citizen has that right. In that case, it’s not a two-clause sentence. In that case, it’s one fluid, poorly written sentence.
On the other side of the argument, some say the amendment states clearly that a militia is necessary for the security of the government. They say the Founding Fathers intended to provide the general people with protection from a tyrannical government (PS… That part is documented as such). They say the right to bear arms is a separate statement.
The debate goes on and on… But we can all agree on one thing no matter how you look at this amendment. It would be really nice if the Founding Fathers would have took a little more care at crafting this amendment more coherently.
But maybe they wrote it this way on purpose?
For now, most people and the US court system views this amendment as the latter. We will keep this updated should anything change.