The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
A ‘Well regulated militia’ at the time of the signing of the Constitution meant one thing... One that was well practiced in the use of their firearms.At that time there was a training system called the ‘Regulations’ that detailed how to properly load aim and fire a muzzle loading rifle.
I believe that an Englishman came up with the Regulations. It was used by the British Army and was so well known that the professional members of the Army were known as the ‘Regulars’. That tradition carries on even to today where we have the ‘Regular Army’ and the Reserves.
So if you wanted to put the second amendment in modern perspective you might say that:
In order to preserve the peace and safety of of the United States the private citizens must practice regularly with their weapons so as to be competent with their usage and maintenance. The right to own and use their weapons may not be taken away from them or have undue or unjust regulations placed upon their rights to own, use and carry them where they desire.
No good. The words undue and unjust are subject to interpretation, and you know how leftists would interpret them.
"The right to own and use their weapons may not be taken away from them or have regulations placed upon their rights to own, use and carry them where they desire" works better.
Even freed criminals and crazies have the right to self defense. If they shouldn't be armed, they shouldn't be running around loose.
Actually ‘Regulated’ at the time of the revolution meant ‘drilled’. So a well regulated militia would be a well drilled as to the militia would be made regular or Uniform in their performance.