Meaning of the second amendment
Most people on this board know the words, but what do they really mean? I'm ashamed to admit that I never really looked into it...into the arguments about 'militia' and such. So I did a little research of my own, digging into historic meanings, and some interesting iterations which preceded the final version. I'm wondering about others' thoughts on my conclusions.
"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."
"security of a free State"
At the time of writing, of course, the authors had the thought of stopping a tyrannical government foremost in their minds. As such, the ability to take up arms against such a government, even if it were to be against themselves, was seen as vital.
Historically, this has meant: 'trained', 'educated', or 'in working order'
Here's the sticking point for so many...however the 'militia' at the time was every able-bodied person who could participate in a military action. We've heard about the minutemen and such...regular working men who made up many of the combatants...THESE were the militia. Early iterations of the text for the second amendment actually included exemptions for who would be the militia (for those whose religion prevented them from taking up arms). So basically, EVERY able-bodied male at the time was potentially part of the 'Militia'.
As such, a "well regulated militia" consists of the people of the country who are trained and have a working knowledge of arms.
So where does this lead in more modern text? My interpretation, with some modernization:
"As the ability for all able-bodied people to have a working knowledge of arms and armament is necessary to prevent tyranny or loss of freedom by the government, the right of those same people to own and have the knowledge to use arms shall not be infringed by that government."
Any insights, corrections, or additional research to toss in?