>>513898193
Ok since your such a fag about it, let's break it down bit by bit.
A well regulated militia. A militia is an unorganized military group made up of civilians. Well regulated means in good working order. A well regulated militia therefore is a group of civilians that is capable of performing as a military unit.
Being necessary to the security of a free state, this is the part right here. A government that is oppressing it's people is not a free state. If they intended the second the to allow them to "bolster their own security" they would have said "state" not "free state" Also, your use of that argument, to bolster their own security just proves that not only have you not read any of the documents related to this countries founding, but you didn't have any interest in what actually is true, and will argue anything of you think it will let you win, but let's continue.
The right of the people, now this part right here is a great, because there is no ambiguity to it at all. There can be no other meaning for the people, it doesn't mean the state, it doesn't mean some vague collective right. It means the rights of each individual person.
To keep and bear arms, again no ambiguity. To have and carry arms. It didn't say muskets, it didn't say limit out to the technology of the time. They used the word arms, which is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as "weapons and equipment used to kill our injure people"
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, now this couldn't be more clear, there is no possible confusion. Again from the Cambridge English Dictionary infringe: to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someoneβs rights or freedom
So taken as a whole, the government cannot restrict an individual person's ability to keep or carry weapons capable of allowing them performing the expected duties of a soldier because that person may need to over throw the government at some point
Mind you, I have the words of the founding fathers backing up my argument