No, if that was exactly what they intended they would have said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to overthrow a tyrannical federal government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Security of a free state" could mean anything -- secession, invasion by another state, invasion by a foreign country, insurrections, riots, or a tyrannical federal government
"Without the militia clause, the Supreme Court could make the same assertion; that our Founders never intended to allow people to have arms which might enable them to overthrow the government."
Oh baloney. You makin' this stuff up?
State constitutions galore omit the militia phrase and you don't see the State Legislature and the State Supreme Courts in a tizzy about the possibility of being overthrown, do you?
Making it up?
It's exaclty the argument made in Gitlow; that rights may be restricted if such restrictions prevent overthrow of the government.
What do you call the AWB, if not a federal law which outlaws certain firearms because they are too powerful for the citizenry? What of the outlawing of machine-guns because they are too powerful for the citizenry despite the fact that every infantry soldier is issued one?
You suggest I am making something up? I have to store five rifles three thousand miles from my home because Gray Davis and Don Perata think that ugly, black rifles are too dangerous for people to own, even without the bayonet lug.
You point out that we have no state-sanctioned organized militias. You are aware of the outlawing of some rifles because they have bayonet lugs.
You are aware that the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Kalifornia Supreme Court that Kalifornians have no right to keep and bear arms.
And you suggest that I am making up the idea that overthrow of the government will be disallowed by the government through civilian disarmament.
What part of "has been totally infringed" do you not understand?
Yes. It means all of those things and anything else which would threaten our freedoms, individually or collectively.
Just as I said, the security of a free state includes freedom from a tyrannical government. If the First Amendment had contained a clause explicitly protecting subversive speech, then it would have been more difficult for the Supreme Court to erroneously restrict freedom of speech as they did in Gitlow.