Re:uhhh.... (Score 1)

The militia is not the nation's military, they are two separate bodies.

The language of the second amendment 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."

While I agree that a "regulated militia" may refer to a state run militia (ie. National Guard in modern terms); it does not indicate that simply the militia should be allowed to keep and bear arms. They could have worded it as such if that was their intent. However, they specifically say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." - which to me is extraordinarily clear language. Again, given the context of the Bill of Rights; given the context of the political and social climate of the time of the framing; given the words of the Founding Fathers themselves (which are VERY clear on this issue); and given that the PEOPLE themselves are the power of the Constitution - I see no other way to interpret this other than to say that the PEOPLE should be allowed to keep and bear arms - again, as a hedge against government tyranny and to provide for a good national defense. A state run militia is still a government run military entity. And while that may provide a hedge against federal tyranny, it does not protect the people themselves against potential tyranny from the state government - why would they provide protection in one sense but still not solve the problem of governmental tyranny as a whole? So again it would seem somewhat against the grain for anything other than the PEOPLE being allowed to keep and bear arms to be the intended meaning of the Second Amendment.