[El Laton Caliente]

If you put it into historical context, “well regulated” in the late 1700s would have the meaning: Trained, drilled and proficient. Hence, a well regulated militia could have been worded: A militia that has been trained, drilled and is proficient in the arts of making war. The framers of the Constitution had no concept at all of “government regulation” in the current context.

Since the Constitution itself has an article concerning “Letters of Marquee” and the issue thereof, it was assumed by the framers that privet citizens would own warships mounting dozens of cannon.

Neither that clause nor the second amendment has been rescinded…

[StJacques]

"If you put it into historical context, “well regulated” in the late 1700s would have the meaning: Trained, drilled and proficient. Hence, a well regulated militia could have been worded: A militia that has been trained, drilled and is proficient in the arts of making war. . . ."

I dealt with this earlier, the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment only affirms the government's rights to regulate the militia as established in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The phrase "well regulated" therefore means in accordance with those established rights of regulation already ratified. The 2nd Amendment is adopted to make certain, i.e. to restrict the federal government's latitude of action, that regulation of the militia as established under Article 1 does not extend to disarming the citizenry.

". . . The framers of the Constitution had no concept at all of 'government regulation' in the current context."

If by this you mean that the framers never would have approved or supported many of the current efforts at gun control, I would have to agree. The modern gun control lobby is a direct threat to our constitutional liberty.