+73 (second amendment interpretation 51)

I don't know where does the stand that they were so okay with guaranteeing the right to firearm ownership come from and how can it maintain itself in front of things pointing so clearly to the contrary? Why no other right needed a supporting reason like this one? Neither things as important as free speech nor things that seems as unessential to a constitution as preventing quartering soldiers in houses were accompanied by any supporting reasoning or explanation. So where does the firearm ownership right fall along that line?    

However, assuming they were that okay with firearm ownership being above legislation at that time is actually better for my argument. That is because it suggests more focus on later times like ours as the reason behind the hardly avoidable sense of balancing things which the reading of the amendment brings. From the beginning I was impressed with how the amendment shows what suggests an attempt at balancing risk with benefit and how that in turn suggests anticipating the increased risk of firearms that came later, and have not seen yet seen what justifies ignoring that.