"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's nothing wrong with is except for its completely distorted interpretation by SCOTUS. They completely ignore the precondition for bearing arms - membership in a well regulated militia.

Aye, but here's the rub:

"The 13th and 14th Amendments fundamentally transformed how the right to keep and bear arms was discussed and applied in the United States, shifting the focus from federal militia service to individual civil rights and protection against state-level oppression during Reconstruction.

The 13th Amendment and Post-War Disarmament (1865)

• Abolition and Black Codes: Following the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery, Southern states enacted restrictive "Black Codes" to control newly freed African Americans.
• Denial of Arms: A primary tactic of these codes was banning Black citizens from owning or carrying firearms.
• Vulnerability to Violence: Denying freedmen the right to bear arms left them defenseless against white supremacist groups, paramilitary violence, and intimidation campaigns.

The 14th Amendment Debates and Reconstruction (1868)

• Protecting Fundamental Rights: During the framing and debate of the 14th Amendment, Republican lawmakers and abolitionists explicitly discussed the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right of citizenship that Southern states were illegally stripping from freedmen.
• The Freedmen's Bureau Act (1866): Congress highlighted the importance of this right by passing legislation like the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which sought to secure the right of all citizens—regardless of race—to have full and equal benefit of laws concerning personal liberty and security, explicitly including the right to bear arms.
• Citizenship and Self-Defense: Proponents of the 14th Amendment argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause (and later, the Due Process Clause) meant that fundamental constitutional liberties—including self-defense and gun ownership—applied to protect individuals from state and local government infringement, not just federal interference.

Judicial Aftermath and Modern Interpretation

• Early Rejection (Cruikshank, 1876): In United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court initially ruled that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government, not state governments, temporarily blunting the Reconstruction-era push to use federal power to protect freedmen's arms rights.
• Incorporation (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010): The Supreme Court formally reversed that early view, ruling in McDonald that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment, making the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense enforceable against state and local governments."

We have these documented discussions after the Civil War. After all the discussions we have about the original intent of the 2d Amendment, the viewpoint that it was an individual right was discussed during the debates on the 14th/ My question is, since they wanted to convey what they thought was an individual right to bear arms to Freedmen, even if we don't believe this was a right with the 2d Amendment, does it become one with the 14th?