Proponents of individual rights say the Second Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee the the rights of all citizens to bear arms, whether they are part of a militia or not. States' rights proponents claim the Second Amendment was adopted with the primary purpose of preserving the state militia, thus, where there is no militia, there is no right to bear arms. Discuss the two opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment that have clashed over the years. In light of the current rulings, has any one won?
https://youtu.be/7AlS14GgYH4