[El Gato]

I thought it protected a "well regulated Militia" not an unorganized militia.

You thought wrong. It protect the right of the people. You have read it, haven't you?

The reason given for the protecting that right is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But the right is said to belong to the people. The militia clause has been used, wrongly IMHO, to determine the nature of the arms which keeping and bearing of is protected, but only in the Miller Supreme Court case and subsequent cases relying on it.

[robertpaulsen]

"The reason given for the protecting that right is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

I agree.

All I'm saying is that an unorganized militia, by definition, wouldn't qualify. I don't consider an unorganized militia to be well regulated.

If the Founding Fathers didn't care, they wouldn't have added the phrase "well regulated" to the second amendment.