The founders feared a militia that might degenerate into an armed gang or that would take orders from a tyrant. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” means that citizens needed to be armed to ensure that any militia was regulated and would not be used by the government against the people.
That is the first time I've seen it explained that way, and it makes so much sense. Militia themselves must be well-regulated by "the people," who have equal right to bear arms as those in the militia. "The people" are always on equal footing. Disarmed people are subjects to official government "militia" designees. People with as much right to bear arms as the militia in what ever form it takes, are guaranteed the ability to, perhaps, keep the militia honest.
Have I interpreted it correctly, do you think?
If so, it makes good sense in a way I'd not thought of before.
> That is the first time I’ve seen it explained that way, and it makes so much sense. Militia themselves must be well-regulated by “the people,” who have equal right to bear arms as those in the militia. “The people” are always on equal footing. Disarmed people are subjects to official government “militia” designees. People with as much right to bear arms as the militia in what ever form it takes, are guaranteed the ability to, perhaps, keep the militia honest.
> Have I interpreted it correctly, do you think?
Mrs. Palin had the right idea. An unregulated militia can be a dangerous entity. Formed with good intent, but not given a purpose, a militia will first degenerate to a social club, then morph into an armed group of thugs. The USA has a number of private militias that are dangerous to both the government and the People.
The People must have the right to keep and bear arms.