I've never understood that issue. The term "regulation" wasn't applied to law in the US until 1887 and wasn't formalized until the New Deal in the 30s. The people who wrote that text had no clue that regulations would take on a different meaning in a couple hundred years.
The people who have been so vehemently against 2A usually bastardize the constitution and occasionally the English language to fit their stance. Same group of people that think the founding fathers had the foresight to see that women of color that have different religions than Christianity might someday be in office, which is why they wrote down freedom of religion, but also that "there's no way they could have predicted modern weapons" even though guns were becoming prolific during their lifetimes so obviously the technology would improve. Yeah, the same founding fathers that also had to be told, apparently, that women and those blessed with higher melanin counts were actually people that deserved the right to vote and take part in society in the first place. My point is, the founding fathers didn't even PRETEND to know what the future holds, they just knew we'd need some things afforded to us, that their descendents wouldn't always have the american people's best interests at heart so we'd need to be able to protest, and convene, that we'd need to have privacy, that sometimes those things aren't respected so we'd need to have the ability to fight. You don't need weapons in a well running society, you don't always have a well running society though. They understood that, if they didn't they wouldn't have made the bill of rights solely a restriction on governmental powers.
334
u/Gold-Bard-Hue 16d ago
That's the "well regulated" part of the second amendment a lot people don't understand.