"To make regular". Read the Militia Act of 1792 for what civilians were expected to show up with in regards to equipment if they wished to join the organized militia.
In order for them to show up with arms, such arms were considered protected. However, it was also noted that arms of other types were equally protected at the time. It has only been since then that attempts by various anti-Rights judges, legislators and lobbyists that have tried to limit the protection for RKBA, the scope of that protection, and a redefinition of terms.
Don't play up the BS meaning by trying to invent something that isn't there. RKBA is what it means. Plainly. The Right of every Individual to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. End of story.
I challenge either of you to find one.(unless you consider an aversion to citizens possessing howitzers, F16s and nuclear weapons - which by the way is meant as a strawman argument - however, I have had Freepers defend the right of George Soros and MoveOn to own these)
I still think it is important to analyze the different aspects of what is a very short Amendment that is so incredibly important.
It is important to be able to understand each aspect of it. As mentioned, I am well past the militia part, but still haven’t found a completely well rounded explanation of the “well-regulated” issue. Saying it is “no longer relevant” doesn't’t work for me, because it opens up that argument for the entire Amendment.
My tendency is to lean toward the contrast with “irregular” (as Dead Corpse wrote) as well as a need to have some type of limitation on militias in comparison to a regular army.
The 2nd is there as a last line of defense, not offense. A militia should not have the fire power to overthrow a government, but rather to defend itself against one.
A citizen should not be able to establish an arsenal of such power that a private army of mercenaries could threaten the country. But, the fire power available should be a deterrent great enough that no force, internal or external, could be certain of securing the country.
For me, that is “well-regulated”. A howitzer in every home is too much. A hunting rifle is too little. I am not qualified to say what the “right amount” is. I believe it changes with weapons and other technology and the balance is part of a political discourse.