GUN GRABBERS,NEED NOT APPLY

Thank God the founding fathers saw, In their infinite wisdom to give us the 2nd amendment.

"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."

Now, what exactly  IS  A well-regulated militia?

 Some think that this means the Army or the Army National Guard in each State, which is regulated basically by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Others, however, believe that this refers to the Militias of the Several States which are made up of all the people within them, citizen soldiers who are well prepared and organized for the exercise of their duty to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

I tend to make a strong argument leaning towards the latter,

While it is true, We need a National Guard in place I doubt the Founding fathers saw that deeply into the future.At least the Militia we now know today as the National Guard.

I would like to simplify at least the historical context of the term when it was ratified by the States as the Second Amendment.

First, none of us could disagree that the term "well" means simply "good". Second, while some disagree as to whether all people or certain volunteers in the National Guard are the "militia", all can accept the fact that this is some assembly of citizen soldiers.

Finally, this leaves us with the ambiguation regarding the word "regulated".  We know that this is basically a verb or an action that is in the past, meaning it has been completed or has been done.  In the context of the protected right, its safe to say that "A well [blank] militia" is the resulting act completed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".  Hence, we must ask which definition of "regulate" would be the effect of the people bearing arms?

So, how could the people be armed cause the militia to be governed or directed according to rule of law?  Well, I guess you could simply say that since the people are the enforcers of the law, that the fact that they armed, would enforce that the militia is governed by the rules that they make since they have the guns.  You might also say that we should read only that everybody should have arms in order to meet the obligations necessary should you be called forth according to the rules governing the militia, which makes it good.

If we consider the second definition, its quite plain to see how everyone having arms would mean the militia would be in good order and in fact brought into uniformity, as to what makes a good fighting force, being one which has the effective means to conduct militant actions.

The third definition could also leave you to assume that everyone being armed fixes the time as while the Constitution is in force, and the amount being everyone constitutes what it means for a militia to be well regulated.

In every one of these definitions, however, there is no doubt that it involved the people being armed, making it hard for any common sense evaluation of the clause that the government can pick and chose who can or cannot be armed.  In fact, the words "shall not infringe" could never be more clear as to the intent of the Amendment.  Simply, that the government can not break this law.

So, if the government broke this law, the militia would not be well regulated, and the States would not be able to secure freedom.  Since the Second Amendment is well known to have the purpose of protecting rights, its practical to assume that those rights would have the intent and the design to secure those rights, and that right are freedoms.  This Amendment, therefore, says that this freedom is protected by all of the people who can bear arms in order to secure this liberty, providing them with the capability of doing so.  This capability is what makes the militia in good proper order and uniformity, thus the riddle behind the meaning is fully resolved.