> Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"?
Because the former is pretty clear and unambiguous, and it is the part that actually describes the limitation of the power of the government.
You can quibble over the meaning of well regulated militia and whether or not it is necessary for the security of a free state then or now, but that is clearly separate from the prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
It does not state if a militia is necessary then people the right to bear arms. It does not state that people who are members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms. It says all people have that right.
Here's something to think about -- Why do people think hunting or personal protection have anything to do with the second amendment?
EDIT: I'll give my answer to my own question, because it might be too ambiguous or obscure. It's actually not that I believe the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection, actually the opposite. Those were such obvious things for people to use guns for that back then they did not even have to be listed. That obviousness is why those things still come up today in discussion about the second amendment despite being enumerated nowhere. It would have been utterly absurd when the document was written that people should not use their guns for hunting or self defense. Clearly statement about the militia in there had no intention of the restriction of the right to have and use guns.
I also believe the security of a free state begins (and more or less ends) with the security of the free man so I think guns are a very important tool for self sufficiency, but that's another story.
Because the former is pretty clear and unambiguous, and it is the part that actually describes the limitation of the power of the government.
You can quibble over the meaning of well regulated militia and whether or not it is necessary for the security of a free state then or now, but that is clearly separate from the prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
It does not state if a militia is necessary then people the right to bear arms. It does not state that people who are members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms. It says all people have that right.
Here's something to think about -- Why do people think hunting or personal protection have anything to do with the second amendment?
EDIT: I'll give my answer to my own question, because it might be too ambiguous or obscure. It's actually not that I believe the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection, actually the opposite. Those were such obvious things for people to use guns for that back then they did not even have to be listed. That obviousness is why those things still come up today in discussion about the second amendment despite being enumerated nowhere. It would have been utterly absurd when the document was written that people should not use their guns for hunting or self defense. Clearly statement about the militia in there had no intention of the restriction of the right to have and use guns.
I also believe the security of a free state begins (and more or less ends) with the security of the free man so I think guns are a very important tool for self sufficiency, but that's another story.