Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.
You're not getting what I meant.
If one is to read what is NOT in the text of the US Constitution, and instead opt to interpret the rights protected by the intention of some of the Framers at the time that the Amendment was written, then one has to give the same constant reading to every part of the Constitution.
To interpret the intent of the Second is easy if that is how you wish to read the Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the intent, then the right to bear arms is subject to it.
It's not. And whatever the intent of the XIV Amendment may have been at the time of its ratification, the words are simple:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."Mind yoi, another poster raised a question about
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they did not
intend to make citizens out of people whose [parents were loyal to another country. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT. It says that anyone born on this soil, and subject to the applicable laws of the land and society, are citizens.
If they
weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" (A.K.A. subject to all applicable laws) of the United States then what right would the U.S. government have to deport them, since they're not subject to our immigration or entry laws?