Seems pretty clear to me.
To put into perspective one must determine what was the sign of the times when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
A well regulated militia
At that time we had a regular army as well as a militia formed by everyday citizens, not reservists, draftees etc. The militia was an all volunteer force whose members supplied their own arms. As such, should a militia be formed today, it would need to rely on its members supplying their own arms.
At the time of the revolution, the arms provided by the members of the militia where the exact type of weapons supplied to members of the regular army. It would be expected that if a militia formed today, its members would need weapons compatible with what they would be expected to face. Therefore, arms provided by members of the militia would need to be contemporary.
keep and bear arms
The potential militia members (virtually any citizen) need to keep those arms nearby and unencumbered so they may form up without delay
Shall not be infringed
Arguments are made for banning military style rifles. Yet, the weapons of choice of the militia were period specific military style rifles.
Arguments have been made that in this day and age, a militia could not uprise. Certainly that same argument was put forth by many citizens in the tumultuous time of the revolution. Some would say it’s an impossibility now. Yet, that argument is irrelevant to the context of the 2a.
Abrignac wrote:
