The more interesting thought is that, as the amendment relates the “right to bear arms” to the need for a “well regulated militia”, how did the second become an absolute, unregulated, “right”, without arms carriers being members of the militia, which, today, would be the Guard and Reserve? Oh, yeah, those “unelected judges legislating from the bench”.
Or, in the current discussions about who is an “officer of the United States”: it has occurred to me that the 14th, and the Constitution itself, may be written in plain language, not modern legalese “terms of art”. Anyone else tried to read the stuff that comes out of Congress these days? Their output is so loopy, full of “notwithstanding”, and sentences or phrases added to, or deleted from, other laws, that it is very difficult for the layman to have any idea what they are blathering about. I heard a “lawmaker” touting his bill to change the rules of the 401k. What he said sounded good, so I tried to read the bill. After tracing back all the changes that legislation made to previous laws, a sentence added here, and phrase deleted there, if finally became evident that the purpose was to remove the limit on how much richer the “JC’s” 401k could be than the Prole’s 401k. If his legislation had passed, the only change would have been so that a company could offer the Proles a 5% match, while offering the “JC” a 5000% match, as a for-instance. A plain language bill would have said “this legislation removes the limits on how much richer the “JCs” 401k can be than that offered to employees”, but no. It took hours of reading to figure out what it actually did.
Jefferson, in drafting the Declaration, said that his intent was to write in plain language, not the loopy blather of today’s lawyers and pols.
As he sat at his desk in a Philadelphia boarding house, Jefferson drafted a “common sense” treatise in “terms so plain and firm, as to command [the] assent” of mankind.
(Jefferson and the Declaration | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello)