It is not "amending" any. It was added because some states refused to ratify the Constitution unless certain restrictions on the Federal government were spelled out. Their fears have been confirmed on numerous occaisions since.
We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is.
Perhaps this will help: ... the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics. This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day)... (source)
But in fact, the "militia" portion of the Amendment is not necessary to secure or modify the right. It is simply an explanation of "why". How does the right change if the verbiage of the initial phrase is changed even to something as silly as this?...
"
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free stateThe moon, being made out of green cheese, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
See? It doesn't. It is a right of the people, and not to be infringed upon by any means.
Most states have identical or similar language in their individual constitutions as well.
Bottom line? This is an unConstitutional power grab by the federal government and should be opposed as such!
ok, thanks