The second amendment and its odd interpretations.

It's hard to express how baffling it is that this many Americans actually believe that the Second Amendment only secures the right of a state militia to bear arms.

I get that we suck at teaching grammar and there are probably millions of American adults who don't know how commas work. What I don't get is why anybody would think that an amendment in the Bill of Rights would be focused on securing the right of a state militia to bear arms.

Isn't it kinda a given that an established state would allow an organized state militia to be armed? Why would you waste an amendment on that clarification - especially the Second Amendment.

Also, just look at the context. The entire Bill of Rights is focused on what the state isn't allowed to restrict the people from doing. The reason for the Bill of Rights' existence was to put into writing what the state can't do.

In order to believe that the Second Amendment isn't about protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms while securing the right of government actors to have guns you have to not understand how commas work, believe that the founders wasted the Second Amendment on something that every government had and has already done, and used only one of the ten amendments to not bolster the rights of the people.

Namely, you're getting grammar, history, and logic wrong.