I suppose the whole issue of "interpreting" the Second Amendment is very upsetting to some people. Funny. Since that is what courts have been doing for years. The Second Amendment is not difficult to understand. The opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", seems to be a big part of the contention, even though that only explained why the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal".
Another problem I have is that it seems very few people understand what "infringed" means. Let's go back to my gold coin analogy. Suppose your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.
People who have an issue with my interpretation of the Second Amendment should read the writings of the founders from the time of the adoption of The Bill of Rights if they don't believe me. You will find that they did mean for it to be understood just as I understand it. You might find that I am a radical; yet I am not wrong.
