General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Message auto-removed [View all]Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1) In the 18th century (and up into the 19th century), "well regulated" simply meant "sufficiently functional and/or equipped." It does not have the same statutory implication it does today.
2) It is an explanatory clause. The explains what follows, but does not constrain it. If it DID constrain it, it would have something like, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the free state, right of the people in such militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But it doesn't say that.
You can rail against the Amendment, but I do think it protects personal firearm ownership as written.
I will also say that I think the right of self defense is the most basic of human rights. What's involved with that is open to debate, but in general, I am not a fan of the state reserving access to weapons to itself and it's agents, even for the "good" of the people.