The Second Amendment is all about interpretation...
quote:
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.
To a lot of people, this is a little too vague. To some, it refers to private citizens rights to bear arms privately, and to others, it refers to military groups such as the National Guard. Myself, I'd have to go with the second option. Most people, when quoting the Amendment, only like to use the second half, which, I think, takes it out of context. When you read the whole Amendment, it seems to refer to "bearing of Arms" as part of a "Well regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state." The problem is, since this is the law, the courts have to follow the wording and not the intention. Maybe our founding fathers should have used better grammer...
