> Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist So obviously inmates should also be allowed guns too right? Where's the NR

> Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist So obviously inmates should also be allowed guns too right? Where's the NRA's "AR-15s for Inmates" campaign? Hyperbolic? Sure. But it exposes the fallacy that the right (or any right for that matter) is absolute. Just like the First Amendment doesn't mean shouting "I have a bomb" in a crowded theater is protected speech the government can't criminalize. > The operative clause is ... Oh, so the first part is just irrelevant flavor text? Let me put this in context [1]: > Under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 on, states were required to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered” with “a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The states would appoint all officers under the rank of colonel. The confederation Congress was permitted to “requisition” these militias for the “common defence,” but only “in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State.” If other states didn’t furnish their share, Congress could ask complying states for more than their proportional share—but the state legislature was guaranteed the power to refuse, even in an emergency. And even when the militia was under federal command, the state legislatures would choose replacement officers as well. You continue: > Other countries with less recognition of the right to keep and bear arms just resort to other forms of violence From your link, less murders per 100k than the United States (4.96) include Niger (4.44), Somalia (4.31) and Libya (2.52). Some other developed nations: Australia (0.88), England and Wales (1.21), Germany (0.95), Norway (0.47) and Japan (0.26). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-...