"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Looks clear to me.
Does not give people the right to break the law....but to defend themselves from those who do.
You left out the part about a well regulated Militia.
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.
The reason for the second amendment is to prevent the federal government from disarming a state militia. So what is necessary to do this? Preventing limits on members of a state militia. But there is no need to prevent limits on all members of society. Like those who have threatened others. Or have killed others. Only on current members of a state millitia.
Congress cannot limit the possession of arms held by members of a well regulated militia. But Congress and State legislatures can limit the arms held by non-members. Limit them on the type of weapons they possess. Or even to the extreme of allowing no firearm at all. Or having no limits on what they can own, if the legislature wishes. Only members of a well regulated militia, under the control of the governor, are not subject to such limitations that the legislature feels is necessary for a state, or for the entire country.
That is why some articles do not state any limitation, like the freedom of speech limited to political candidates. Or the freedom of religion is only limited to pastors. While the second amendment does have a limitation specified.
