I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.
The central point is that the individual’s ability to bear arms is contingent upon it being for the force of a well regulated militia, such as one with a central armory. This particularly makes sense when we remember the Patriots largely organized around city militia and armories, which the British government sought to reduce to an individual bearing arms.
The founders deliberately chose wording that unambiguously states that the ownership of arms is not contingent upon militia membership. I find it hard to believe that originalist
or textualist arguments could be made otherwise.
I love how people always forget the second and third words of the second amendment. Can people bear firearms? Sure. If yes, should they be regulated? Abso-f**kin'-lutely.
Also, for the record, you cannot kill people with a cow. Well, unless you're really good at domestication.
The second and third words of the amendment refer to the militia, not to firearms. This thread is not about what you think the law "should" say; rather, it is about the actual meaning of the text. Your extension of the cow analogy is thus irrelevant.
[/quote]
Then that means that it's the complete and total right of the government to take the arms away from anyone who isn't a member of a militia.
Also, I wanna take this moment to ask what the hell a 'well regulated militia' counts as. I really hate law that uses terms like that, it's not very explicit in my opinion.
Poll
