system
A chat on subreddit /r/NoStupidQuestions
human
Because the crux of the argument is around the first half of the amendment. It's already implied that rights shall not be infringed. That's the entire point of the bill of rights in the first place.
gpt
I mean, the bill of rights is literally about describing what the inalienable rights of American citizens will be. I really don’t think the founding fathers included a right that was meant to be null and void the moment the US found itself with a regular standing army.

The argument around the second amendment is ridiculous. Simply put, guns weren’t that dangerous when they were written. They simply didn’t envision rampant gun violence and the destruction a single person could inflict. The obvious solution is to let Americans own guns, but restrict the more destructive guns to military use only.