Well, in keeping with my long-given advice to be wary of using rhetorical questions, because someone might give you a not-so-rhetorical answer: "The sixth word of the Amendment":
The problem with the original question is that the concept of need ("necessary") is indeed attached to the right. Being in the prefatory preambular clause and not directed at the need of the individual person, it doesn't restrict the right of the operative clause. It does, nonetheless, give the aspiration of securing the right, and that is a basis in need. 2A is the only right of the Bill of Rights to have such a clause, and the from-the-hip rhetorical question simply sets up the questioner to an embarrassing retort. Pro-gunners need to conform both their perspectives and their rhetoric to the reality.
.
BONUS FACT:
The old 1688/89 English Bill of Rights held that class and situation--"conditions"--bore on its Right to Arms, and it needs to be addressed, as it frankly can cut both ways in the issue of the nature and scope of RKBA:
A point of clarification is needed here. The "as allowed by Law" reference points to the view of "rights" at the time and where the threat to them came from. The concern in those days was that the Monarch--to a degree analogous to our Executive Branch--would act to restrict private arms. Part of the issue, but not entirely, was worry that a Roman Catholic might ascend to the throne and disarm non-Catholics--hence the "Subjects who are Protestants" line. (Religion was not the only concern, as Joyce Lee Malcolm shows in her essential work, "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".)
We see such a dichotomy between "right" and "as allowed by law"--at least, as it may be perceived by some--in 3A, where quartering of soldiers in private homes is permitted in wartime, BUT only "in a manner to be prescribed by law." The intent here is to restrain military authorities--including the President--from using war powers in such an intrusive way without the involvement of Congress.
The American constitutional RKBA provision, however, holds no such branch distinction.
But to the matter at hand is the "suitable to their conditions" clause of the English act. As noted in TDF Edition 10, "artillery"--cannons, catapults, etc.--was largely the province of government, communities, and aristocracy/nobility, and thus not in focus for rights of the general population. Yet even in the "small arms" (in modern parlance) focus of the 1688 provision, an individual's "condition" ("needs"?) in that society were a factor for them there. (PERSONAL NOTE: It always conjures up for yours truly the image of a peasant possessing the proverbial blunderbuss to ward off burglars, and the nearby lord of the manor keeping an arsenal to equip his servants.)
We see such a dichotomy between "right" and "as allowed by law"--at least, as it may be perceived by some--in 3A, where quartering of soldiers in private homes is permitted in wartime, BUT only "in a manner to be prescribed by law." The intent here is to restrain military authorities--including the President--from using war powers in such an intrusive way without the involvement of Congress.
The American constitutional RKBA provision, however, holds no such branch distinction.
But to the matter at hand is the "suitable to their conditions" clause of the English act. As noted in TDF Edition 10, "artillery"--cannons, catapults, etc.--was largely the province of government, communities, and aristocracy/nobility, and thus not in focus for rights of the general population. Yet even in the "small arms" (in modern parlance) focus of the 1688 provision, an individual's "condition" ("needs"?) in that society were a factor for them there. (PERSONAL NOTE: It always conjures up for yours truly the image of a peasant possessing the proverbial blunderbuss to ward off burglars, and the nearby lord of the manor keeping an arsenal to equip his servants.)
In the American Constitution, though, "equal protection under the law" generally precludes such distinctions, with differentials in rights calling for some other valid basis. That said, "need" is in sight in the American vision of RKBA: "necessary to the security of a free State."
As stated, the 1688/89 legacy of Anglo-American rights can cut both ways in rhetoric. It is important that proponents of RKBA have a clearer picture of matters BEFORE offering up what they think are rhetorical killshots. (And they should actually READ! "Necessary" is the sixth word of the Amendment, folks!) The anti-gunner they are facing on social media might be as smart as me! Better to check in private beforehand with someone knowledgeable than to have one's backside handed to you in public.
As stated, the 1688/89 legacy of Anglo-American rights can cut both ways in rhetoric. It is important that proponents of RKBA have a clearer picture of matters BEFORE offering up what they think are rhetorical killshots. (And they should actually READ! "Necessary" is the sixth word of the Amendment, folks!) The anti-gunner they are facing on social media might be as smart as me! Better to check in private beforehand with someone knowledgeable than to have one's backside handed to you in public.
