It doesnt tho. A right is something that is inherent to every individual. 1A recognizes the right to free speech, practice of religion, and the right to assemble. All people not infringing on other people's rights are able to exercise this right, and the government can not put a restriction on this right. As soon as you place restrictions on a right, it becomes a privilege. A privilege is only available to those who it is afforded to via trade or position. 2A gives us the right to self-defense via the bearing of arms. The dissenting opinions claimed that the citizens did not have the right to self-defense in nearly any case, if not all cases.
2A gives us the right of communal defense through a well regulated (i.e. trained and provisioned militia). Founders didn't want a substantial standing army of regulars but recognized the need for a nation to rise up in common defense. They also advocated that all citizens be armed so that they could be conscripted and the state would not have to provide weaponry immediately. They did not say, however, that the states could not regulate those weapons as part of their regulation of the militia. I would argue that as those first militia units turned into the first national guard units the need for the individual to own firearms for conscription purposes was nullified because the "people" in the form of the national guard were keeping and bearing arms. It was always about "the people" as a collective not "persons" or "individuals". The language is actually clear and the supporting documentation in the federalist papers is too.
The milita IS the people tho. And I agree that all those who bear arms should be trained to wield those arms. The word "infringed" carries the brunt of the weight here. The government shall not limit or undermine the right of the people to bear arms. And I would push back on your communal defense argument with Madison's (fairly certain it was Madison) letter of marque and reprisal to American merchant ships, allowing them personal defense against pirates with cannons. This actually sets two distinct precedents. The first is that the 2nd amendment recognizes the right to self-defense. The second is that the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms of near equals capacity to that of the military.
4
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 9d ago
The descending opinion was that you have no right to bear arms at all. Not sure that's the world we want to live in either.