What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?

O.K., let's suppose ad arguendo the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Militia.

The wording is indeed "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is "the People" as in "We the People", which meant that the constitution was written by the entire population of the United States who came to Philadelphia to be part of this momentous occasion, instead of a small, elite band.

People being an individual as in "he be my people".

Funny, I always thought people was plural. It's hard to imagine it referring to an individual.

Anyway, people is an individual. I know that's not really grammatical or makes sense, but we have to believe that "People" refers to an individual.

It's all part of the argument.

It is the right of this people, as an individual "to keep and bear arms". Keep means exactly that, you can possess them. Bear also means that, you can have them out an open.

Arms. Those are military weapons and "this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" according to St.George Tucker.

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."..."With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Now, given that language it's safe to assume that "Arms" means some form of military weapon, and not hunting or target firearms.

This means any weapon which is in use by the military! That means I can own a thermonuclear device, howitzer, rocket launcher, etcetera.

"Infringe" means to violate or invalidate.

"Shall not" is imperitive.

That means any individual can own a thermonuclear device. the government can't regulate that.

This means criminals cannot be barred from owning firearms, unless they lose their rights as citizens (Dred Scott and Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)).

As the saying goes "What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?"

Now, isn't that plain off silly? I would like to think most people who support their "Second Amendment Rights" would agree that SOME form of regulation is possible, which means they don't really understand "Shall not be infringed".

"Shall not be infringed" means precisely that, that this right cannot be abrogated.

Does that make any sense to you?

This is made even sillier when one considers that individuals are supposed to be able to have arms so that they can wage war on the government if they feel oppressed.

Never mind the Consitution Article III, Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Oh, yes, it's the "patriots" who make this argument.