A well regulated…

A well regulated…

Not even the First Amendment comes with that kind of qualifying language:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet, the Courts have repeatedly found all kinds of qualifications and limitations to free speech, including hate speech, obscenity (pornography), fighting words, defamation, slander, etc.

Despite the fact that the 2d Amendment starts off with “A well regulated…”, gun owner advocates claim that the 2d provides an unfettered right, which doesn’t comport with federal law, Supreme Court jurisprudence or common sense.

When you’re taught to read laws and interpret them, you’re supposed to follow the plain language as written and to use common definitions where necessary. An unfettered gun right would go against the plain language of the law IMO. There’s no way to read the 2d as an unlimited right to firearms without eliminating the opening clause and that undermines the intent of the Founders. Some form of restrictions were always part of the plan.