Arguments Against The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment of United States reads, "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." This amendment has a very strong controversially from the public nation. Also, I think it's one of the most vague and complex sentence among all the Amendments. Until the Supreme Court's decision in (2008) where they decide “in a five four decisions the Court held that it did, striking down a Washington, D.C. law that banned handgun possession in home.” The nation were told for over decades that the Second Amendment didn’t promise or even mentioned about an individual right. Based on the wording of United States v. Miller (1939), the theory was promulgated
Neither is it opaque or difficult to understand. A militia is "a citizen army," an entity that is most definitely distinct from a professional military. The Second Amendment becomes perfectly lucid when we understand that the "well regulated" militia spoken of in the Amendment is to be composed of a people who have right to keep and bear arms. The two clauses of the Second Amendment, the first which refers to a "militia," and the second which refers to "the people," cannot be separated and interpreted independently. For the Second Amendment to be intelligible the two clauses must be reconciled. Indeed, it is very difficult to assemble a militia from a people who have been
"A well regulated militia...." The militias were not some protection from federal over reach. In fact the militias were to be the main element of the military in case of war. The United States Army in the early 1790's numbered roughly 1,500 officers and men. Hardly enough to fight off a determined enemy. The Amendment made sure that the main fighting element of the military would have weapons and be available in time of war of national emergency. Now that job has been supplanted with the formation of the National Guard and the Reserves. Second is "...the right...to keep and bear arms...." This is also problematic for the gun lobbyists. It presumes ownership. But what about regulations in place regulating HOW that ownership comes about? It also does not say what type of arms, thus the classification of arms could be made and certain classes banned without violating the Second Amendment. Third is the final phrase "...shall not be infringed." That last word, infringed, is one of degree, not an absolute. How much is too much? How far can we go without stepping over the line? By not using the wording of the First Amendment, "no law" (and even with that bar there are exceptions to the absolute nature of the Amendment), it implies that there is flexibility in what can be done with respect to guns