[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.

[tacticalogic]

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

How "well regulated" would you consider a militia that can field nothing but shotguns?

[El Gato]

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.

The militia can't be well-regulated if the people denied the keeping and bearing of arms, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. But it is not the right of the militia, well-regulated or not, that is protected, it's the right of the people.