Why is there an argument over the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

Answer 1

The controversy is caused by the way the amendment was worded: 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.

Do the first few words mean that the right to keep and bear arms is just for militia (i.e., the National Guard or state militias)? And does that wording give the right to the government to ensure that arms owners are well regulated? Does the wording apply only to federal restrictions on arms?

Over recent years the courts have increasingly ignored the first half of the wording and have emphasized only the last phrase. Courts have struck down local anti-gun laws for regulation of sales, ownership, registration, etc. However, the courts have allowed the government to limit the size of weapons. Fully automatic weapons, large capacity, high caliber, and weapons with exploding shells are restricted by state and Federal Laws.