The 2-nd Amendment.

[politicallefty]

I'm one to believe that the Second Amendment is nonsensical in today's society. It says nothing about gun ownership. It establishes a right to bear arms that is subject to some (although not absolute) regulation. If you ignore the prefatory clause, as the Supreme Court has effectively done in Heller, there is no textual basis in the Constitution for any arms control laws whatsoever (let alone simple gun control measures). If the prefatory clause is ignored, I'd like to know what sort of measures would survive constitutional scrutiny (because it seems like the remainder is quite absolute in its guarantee).

[politicallefty]

So, do you think the Second Amendment is ridiculous or do you think it doesn't apply to personal gun ownership? It sounds like you're simultaneously claiming that it's nonsensical and trying to interpret it in a "sensical" way.

Anyway, the Second Amendment does explicitly reference ownership:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe it is nonsensical to have such an amendment altogether in the context of a modern democratic society. However, that viewpoint is a minority. I accept that it is part of the Constitution and should be recognized as such.

Reading the entire text of the amendment, I do accept that there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However, I also do not ignore the text that states that such a right be well-regulated. The Second Amendment says nothing about guns; it only mentions arms. If the right is absolute, there can be no governmental regulation. Acceptance of the prefatory clause allows for some regulation. I'd like to know the constitutional basis through which one ignores that clause, yet allows for regulations (or even banning) of certain types of arms.