Note: This is part three in a multi-part series. Part one can be read here, while part two can be read here

So we know the purpose of the Constitution and have an idea of what the Second Amendment may represent. Here's where we begin to wade into murky waters and I play amateur lawyer to the chagrin of Nancy Grace or Colion Noir (pro-gun lawyer and NRA advocate).

Let's look at the Second Amendment one more time:

"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."

The important concepts here are a well-regulated militia and no infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Now the argument is that the concept of 'no infringement' is absolute, but you'd be able to argue that 'well-regulated' (or even 'well-regulated militia') can counter that. So if we're going to break it down from front to back, we're going to have to start with militias.

But what is a militia? Well, the Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a simple definition of "a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers." Then there's the full definition:

1. a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

So simply put, they're either a civilian fighting force or what almost sounds like the National Guard was meant to be. The more important language attached to 'militia,' though, is 'well-regulated,' which could be seen as counter-intuitive to 'shall not be infringed;' after all, when something is regulated, it has to abide by guidelines and uphold standards.

Here's the issue. In simple definition, to infringe means "to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.)" or "to wrongly limit or restrict (something as in another person's rights)." In full, we have "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another" (as in 'patent infringement') or "obsolete." Technically, if we say somebody can't have a gun for the wrong reasons, we are infringing upon their right to arms.

As I said before, the concept of no infringement is seen by some as absolute, but our government system was built on checks and balances. After all, the First Amendment says nothing about no infringement, but it does say something about abridging the freedom of speech. For brevity's sake, I'll lay off the dictionary part (which you can instead find here), but in summary, to abridge our freedom of speech would be to lessen it or shorten it.

We all know that this right isn't absolute and it seems to be something we're generally okay with; after all, I can't just run into a theater and shout, "Fire!" and generally cause panic and mayhem, nor can I overtly threaten somebody with physical harm and leave them in a state of duress (assault or terroristic threats, depending on jurisdiction and officer). These are just brief examples of how we abridge the freedom of speech in a reasonable, positive manner.

So if we can abridge upon speech, can we infringe upon gun rights? Well, we kind of do already. Among others, convicted felons, fugitives and illegal aliens (well, the Constitution doesn't protect illegal aliens, but that's a different topic for a different day) can't legally own weapons in any state. These are generally seen as proper reasons, though.

In order for someone to forfeit their gun rights, particular criteria must be met. For us to know fully about these criteria, we use background checks. Many pro-gun advocates are against background checks because of their dogmatic belief in non-infringement, but others, like me, are for them as long as they're reasonable in both theory and execution. After all, just because it becomes a little more tedious to own a weapon doesn't mean I can't do it.