In the discussion of the Second Amendment, critics of freedom persist in the grammatical distortion of tying the preceding dependent clause to the succeeding independent clause, as if the only “people” having a right to keep and bear arms are the “well-regulated militia”. To pile error on top of error, they further infer that “well-regulated” means ‘infringed by legal code’ rather than ‘trained and proficient’, as per original intent.
These two points have been well-addressed by numerous writers, sadly to no avail. It appears impossible to make the message stick as long as freedom haters maintain control over mainstream mass communication. We must rely on the web to destroy that failed existing institution, and provide the open discussion to which the proponents of tyranny pay such false lip service.
One additional note, that tends to be submerged in the chatter about the Second Amendment, is that the “well-regulated militia” phrase implies a force of trained and prepared citizens controlled within the states (not controlled by the feral [sic] government), called to action as necessary to defend the united states. A standing [federal] army is, in fact, proscribed, as is, by extension, federal law enforcement, ‘homeland security’, and federal ’emergency management’ troops.
The National Guard, as originally conceived, was to be the ‘organized’ component of the militia, again controlled within the states. [The closely-related creation of the post-Reconstruction Posse Comitatus Act and the Compromise of 1877 is a topic worthy of separate discussion.] The citizen voluntary force (id est the ‘unorganized militia’) was to comprise the bulk of the militia forces. Its members were to keep and bear personal arms suitable for military purposes, and were to be ready on short notice to defend the united states from attack.
If we’re going to have a discussion on the right to keep and bear arms, we’re going to have to agree on the correct definition of the terms and concepts.