[El Gato]

being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state. I am sure such points mean nothing to you.

You've got the emphasis wrong. "being necessary to the security of a FREE state.". You also have a problem with English grammer. The main clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's up to the people to decide if and how those arms shall be utlitized.

Early militias were as likely to be controled by cities and towns, rather than the State government, some were independent of all governments. In any event, the militia are the people themselves, or at least the male portion thereof, just wearing a "different hat".

[justshutupandtakeit]

No I did not have the emphasis wrong. I emphasized the word I intended to emphasize in order to point to the purpose of the militia. It was there to protect a free state not to protect people from their own state/nation. It explains why the right was to be protected, not to hunt bears, shoot targets, have fun or even self-protection. It was to protect their free state. They are not allowed to turn their guns upon their free state.

Militias were made up of every able bodied man and evolved from units whose only useful purpose was to protect against Indian raids to units which could also be used as auxilaries with the British forces when fighting the French then to units which were used to fight the British during the War.

They become more formal as time goes on and eventually were susceptible to calling into federal service at which point they must be trained under officers appointed by the State and under regulations promulgated by the Congress.