"Constitutional" Carry

The gun absolutists have been throwing around the term "Constitutional Carry" to describe gun laws that allow unrestricted gun ownership - no background checks, no permits, no safety classes - nothing. The term is a work of marketing genius! Who could be opposed to something that was constitutional? But is it really? They focus on the words "Shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment, ignoring the context of the rest of the amendment. 

Contrary to what the words "well regulated" mean today, in the 18th Century they carried the meaning of "well-organized", "well -prepared" or "disciplined" and did not refer to regulations as we understand them today. So the first part of the amendment is saying that the militia must be prepared and ready to carry out its duties when called upon. "Hah!" a Second Amendment absolutist might say - "See! It's not about regulation at all!" But the next phrase "Being necessary to the security of a free state" must be considered. Unlike today, when we have a large standing army, the defense of the nation was largely in the hands of state militias, which could be called up and nationalized. Many on the right maintain that militias also existed in order to stand up against so-called tyranny of the national government. I find this difficult to believe, that anew government would codify the means of its own overthrow within its founding document. 

Then we have the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms...". Until 2008 "the people" was not interpreted necessarily as an individual right, but one of the plural "people". When you take the whole amendment as a unified whole, rather than disjointed, unconnected clauses, it's obvious (to me anyway) that the founders wanted "the people" to be able to keep (own) and bear (use) weapons in order that the militia (which existed for the security of "the state") might be prepared to do its duty (i.e. that members would not need to be trained after they were called up, but were ready in advance to use those weapons). 

Anyway, that's my interpretation, which I share with many Americans. The "Constitutional Carry" people want us to think that there's only one "right" way to interpret the Second Amendment and anyone who wants any kind of reasonable, rational regulations is anti-Constitution. Like I said earlier, great marketing, but deception Constitutional analysis.