Here it is:
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.
The question is context. The people can keep and bear Arms. BUT. Can they only keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia? And what's this about "being necessary to the security of a free State". Does that mean I need a handgun under my pillow? Is that guaranteeing the security of a free State?
Keep in mind, this was written shortly after a revolutionary war. A tyrannical government was fresh in the minds of the founding fathers, and they recognized the very real possibility that they might inadvertently replace one tyranny with another.
And so most likely, by dissecting the sentence as written, and keeping in mind the environment in which it was written, we can understand what the founding fathers intended. And most likely they expected that states would regulate their own individual militia's, in order to protect themselves from a potentially rogue federal government.
And so that leaves us with the question. Do we accept the 2nd Amendment directly as it's written? Or do we interpret it as it was most likely originally intended? And remember, the Constitution is a living document. It isn't written in stone. It is open to interpretation, and if necessary, change.
This issue isn't as black and white as you want to believe it is. But then, that's what happens when you only focus on the part of the sentence you like.
EDIT: Edited to add quite a bit of content.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2010 05:52AM by Java.