[KrisKrinkle]

“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.”

After reading the article and the comments in the thread, and looking at your video, it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” means that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the state from external invasion and internal insurrection, banditry and so forth. You pretty much have to have something like that. But they knew such a militia could be turned against the people in an act of tyranny so “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” because the people might have to defend themselves against such a “well-regulated militia” if it was turned against them in an act of tyranny.

For some time I’ve thought the founders had difficulty incorporating such an “off switch” in the government they were establishing. They didn’t want to be too obvious about including in the formal documentation the concept of “If we screw up, just shoot us”.

[suthener]

I would say you’re pretty much exactly right. People don’t realize that what you describe is exactly what happened to the founding fathers. The British weren’t an invading force; everyone involved was British.

[Phlyer]

. . . it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, . . .

The problem with this and most of the other comments is that this is one phrase where the meaning in contemporary English has changed from the original meaning.

"Well-regulated" did not mean "controlled by laws not passed by Congress." "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating." Hence, many clocks were called, "Regulators", not because they controlled things by written rules, but because they operated smoothly and efficiently.

So, a 'well-regulated' militia was one that could operate efficiently in the absence of direct control by government. This is exactly derived from our experience during the Revolutionary War, and in particular by Lexington and Concord. On Lexington Green, our militia tried to fight a set-piece battle with British Army regulars, and lost terribly. Our 'militia' was not a conventional military force and not able to participate effectively in conventional military battles.

But, after that the British marched on Concord. The 'militia' sniped at them from behind fences and trees and hay bales, using their own personal weapons with which they were already skilled. And they tore the British regulars up.

So, the most direct and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment follows from that experience. In order to have an effective militia, the people need to have their own weapons and be familiar with their use. They don't need to be members of a conventional military force, because that didn't work well for us (and beside, we didn't trust a standing army anyway), but woe to the enemy who tries to attack us when every tree, every hay bale, and every fence hides ordinary citizens who are very skilled in using their personal weapons to shoot whatever they feel needs to be shot - whether it's a deer, a robber, or a uniformed soldier.

I don't disagree with those who say that the Second Amendment is about fighting tyranny, but the key is that the skill the members of the militia bring - for whatever purpose - is a result of their owning and using firearms in their ordinary lives. Hence they could report for militia duty already possessing the weapons and the skills to support effective service to the public good.

[elteemike]

And put another way...

“A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

Who has the right? The well-balanced breakfast, or the people?

It’s really very simple to understand; unless the aim is to deceive the unthinking...