It reads,
"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."
To me and many others it is plain that the first part of this sentence,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
Is there to justify the second part of the sentence,
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In plain English, this sentence means, "Hey, we're going to need an organized volunteer Army, so we're not going to keep people from owning guns, so they can be in that organized volunteer Army"
In other words, the part about a well regulated militia actually means something. It means that the essence of the second part of the sentence (we can have guns) is justified by the first part of the sentence (we're going to need an organized volunteer Army).
HOWEVER, the more pro-gun violence among us argue that the clause about a well regulated militia refers to the fact that the government will maintain an organized militia to defend our nation, and thus the average citizen will be allowed to own guns of his own in order to keep that standing government militia from practicing tyranny over the citizen.
I'll keep my remarks short and simple here...that's pure fantasy. It's pure fantasy to believe that there is a line in the constitution granting you the right to maintain an arsenal in order to overthrow the government. If you were allowed to make preparations to overthrow your government, then the anti-sedition laws, the laws forbidding membership in a group which advocates the overthrow of the United States government by force, and the numerous state laws prohibiting the formation of "Private Armies" would've been declared unconstitutional. They haven't.
This was written before we had a massive military budget, millions of armed forces members and a massive supply of weapons of mass destruction. We no longer need Minutemen standing by in the woods with their muskets at the ready to defend our nation, we have a full time military for that. In the meantime, our inisitence on clinging to the gun has had no effect other than providing a rash of unnecessary gun violence and tragedy across this land; tragedies which strike women and minorities hardest.
It is time for the citizen to realize that guns are best held in the hands of those responsible for the safety of citizens, the steady hand of government.
Enjoy your time with your antiquated rifle, delemorte, and make sure you practice well enough that you'll be able to resist your government if it becomes tyrannical. I'd love to see what your Mosin-Nagant does against an Apache-Longbow.
Homeless
Well thank you for that lesson on the 2nd amendment. On the other hand the Supreme court doesn't agree. And for how many years? I guess I have no right to defend my home and family if it be necesary. I do believe that is what our forefathers meant. But you libs keep working on stripping all of our rights and soon you will have your socialistic utopia. This guy sure reminds me of Bag Head.