The Supreme Court of the United States and most legal scholars (post-Heller) agree that the justification for the Second Amendment is not a prescribed limitatio

The Supreme Court of the United States and most legal scholars (post-Heller) agree that the justification for the Second Amendment is not a prescribed limitation. "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a reason the Second Amendment exists, not the only reason or one that limitations may be paved around. The comma makes all the difference. The original text is only marginally meaningful, post-Heller, as the interpretation that individuals may own and bear arms (specifically semi-automatic handguns - presented as those in "common use") is now law - carrying the same weight as if it were written two hundred years ago. I was so happy the day that decision came through: small-minded individuals making arguments based on flawed interpretations of semantics were immediately put to rest. ------ re: stun guns - I agree that this is ridiculous, but a firearm is a much better tool for self-defense (not that you shouldn't be allowed to make that bad choice).