I've been reading the Second Amendment over and over and started seeing it differently lately.

" A well-regulated (supplied) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ( the USA), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
(Did that from memory so please forgive any minor mistakes) ( parenthesis added for my interpretation)

It doesn't seem that it's to battle tyranny from within as the Framer's thought they'd figured out a system of checks and balances that would prevent that from happening.
It seems they thought if the fight came to us everyone (the people) should be able to take up their personal arms to defend our Free Republic.

I just post this as I'm not seeing the fighting internal tyranny part.
I don't think the framer's saw that. Although it may be relevant and they had forethought they didn't know about.

I still think the Framers thought we, the people, should have our right to keep and bear arms, any arms, not infringed upon.
But I'm rethinking the internal revolution part.
They thought they had this government thing figured out with checks and balances, a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights.

Were they thinking of the Greeks and we'd have to re-invent this free State over and over again?

(No, I'm not a troll)

I've been reading the Second Amendment over and over and started seeing it differently lately.

" A well-regulated (supplied) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ( the USA), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

When looking at the phrase, "security of a free state", one has to wonder as to what are the factors that could compromise its security.

IMO, almost anything can be argued to be potential threat; however, the second part that states the "right to bear arms" gives some idea that the threats that the framers of the Constitution were thinking about were perhaps those that could be nullified with the use of firearms, such as insurgents, domestic terrorists, invaders, etc., whose purpose was presumably to take away the free state away from the people. 

I've been reading the Second Amendment over and over and started seeing it differently lately.

" A well-regulated (supplied) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ( the USA), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
(Did that from memory so please forgive any minor mistakes) ( parenthesis added for my interpretation)

It doesn't seem that it's to battle tyranny from within as the Framer's thought they'd figured out a system of checks and balances that would prevent that from happening.
It seems they thought if the fight came to us everyone (the people) should be able to take up their personal arms to defend our Free Republic.

I just post this as I'm not seeing the fighting internal tyranny part.
I don't think the framer's saw that. Although it may be relevant and they had forethought they didn't know about.

I still think the Framers thought we, the people, should have our right to keep and bear arms, any arms, not infringed upon.
But I'm rethinking the internal revolution part.
They thought they had this government thing figured out with checks and balances, a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights.

Were they thinking of the Greeks and we'd have to re-invent this free State over and over again?

(No, I'm not a troll)

You are absolutely incorrect. 

Research the topic quite a bit more.  Learn more about the authors of the Constitution, where they came from, the struggles they endured throughout creating a new nation after having just defeated the British empire.  Place the framing of the Constitution and the eventual Bill of Rights into proper context and time frame that it was penned and what the English language meant in that era. 

Educate yourself on the Articles of Confederation, and then read the Federalist papers, particularly Federalist No. 46.   You will gain a better understanding of the mindset of the framers when they eventually felt the need to hold a Constitutional Convention to move from the Articles of Confederation and then to come up with the Constitution of the United States.

Continue to research further WHY the Anti-Federalists wanted to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United States.  It should become evident as to the intent of the framers as to why they felt it was an absolute necessity of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.  The primary reason was to defend against a government that could become too empowered and acts like a tyrannical monarchy.  This is not guessing what they meant; it is in their own written words.

ETA - The entire Bill of Rights intent was to protect against the overreach of a tyrannical government and to restrict their power.  Having just fought a war of independence, they very much understood that an armed populace would help to prevent a power struggle from within that could form a controlling government like the one that they just broke away from.

You are absolutely incorrect. 

Research the topic quite a bit more.  Learn more about the authors of the Constitution, where they came from, the struggles they endured throughout creating a new nation after having just defeated the British empire.  Place the framing of the Constitution and the eventual Bill of Rights into proper context and time frame that it was penned and what the English language meant in that era. 

Educate yourself on the Articles of Confederation, and then read the Federalist papers, particularly Federalist No. 46.   You will gain a better understanding of the mindset of the framers when they eventually felt the need to hold a Constitutional Convention to move from the Articles of Confederation and then to come up with the Constitution of the United States.

Continue to research further WHY the Anti-Federalists wanted to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United States.  It should become evident as to the intent of the framers as to why they felt it was an absolute necessity of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.  The primary reason was to defend against a government that could become too empowered and acts like a tyrannical monarchy.  This is not guessing what they meant; it is in their own written words.

ETA - The entire Bill of Rights intent was to protect against the overreach of a tyrannical government and to restrict their power.  Having just fought a war of independence, they very much understood that an armed populace would help to prevent a power struggle from within that could form a controlling government like the one that they just broke away from.

+1; agree.

Please also note that the language of the 2nd Amendment does not CREATE a right, but rather stipulates that an inherent right shall not be infringed upon by the government.

The Bill of Rights was made in a time when people did not trust their government.  It was made to limit the power of government so that the people could be free.   Is it just a coincidence that 9 of the amendments turned out this way but the 2nd amendment did not?  Or did the founders intend all 10 to be like this.

Does this right benefit the people (or State) while limiting the power of Federal Government?
1.  Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.  Yes

2.  Right to keep and bear arms, the theories are:
   a.  For a Federal militia?  No
   b.  For a State militia? Yes
   c.  For self-defense from other persons?  No
   d.  Defend against a foreign invasion?  No
   e.  Fight a tyrannical Federal Government?  Yes
   f.   To hunt?  No
   g.  For sporting purposes?  No

3.  No quartering of soldiers. Yes
4.  Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Yes
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy. Yes
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial. Yes
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.  Yes
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments. Yes
9. Other rights of the people. Yes
10.     Powers reserved to the states.  Yes

See a pattern?

The Bill of Rights was made in a time when people did not trust their government.  It was made to limit the power of government so that the people could be free.   Is it just a coincidence that 9 of the amendments turned out this way but the 2nd amendment did not?  Or did the founders intend all 10 to be like this.

Does this right benefit the people (or State) while limiting the power of Federal Government?
1.  Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.  Yes

2.  Right to keep and bear arms, the theories are:
   a.  For a Federal militia?  No
   b.  For a State militia? Yes
   c.  For self-defense from other persons?  No
   d.  Defend against a foreign invasion?  No
   e.  Fight a tyrannical Federal Government?  Yes
   f.   To hunt?  No
   g.  For sporting purposes?  No

3.  No quartering of soldiers. Yes
4.  Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Yes
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy. Yes
6. Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial. Yes
7. Right of trial by jury in civil cases.  Yes
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments. Yes
9. Other rights of the people. Yes
10.     Powers reserved to the states.  Yes

See a pattern?

I still don't trust the govt.

Surf, well spoken and researched.
Zippz, well laid out.

Tip my hat to both.

Why the words well regulated militia?
And the right of the People shall not be infringed?
seems almost contradictory. And what anti's and pro-2A's argue about.

Shall not be infringed seems almost absolute.
Except the well regulated militia part.
( whicih the anti's grab)

I take regulated as equipped.

If it's about States rights, didn't that end with the civil war?

Read the federalist papers as well. A lot of insight into the minds of this nation one framers.

When I get in front of a computer I shall type lol

Basically, the Founding Fathers looked at how governments operated in Europe at that time and said, let's not do that. (Yes, I know that's an over simplification.) They then framed the Bill of Rights as a reaction to the aristocracy rule. In particular, the Catholic King James II attempted to disarm the Protestants in order to subjugate a portion of the population. My understanding is that they first required registration of firearms and then used that to collect the firearms. That is why I believe the Hawaii law of registration (or any for that matter) is unconstitutional. BTW, I was cruising YT and found this interesting video. Let's say there have been 420,000 gun registrations in Hawaii since 2000. If 1% of these registrations are in error, that's 4,200 possible felonies. How do we know that the registrations that HPD has on file are accurate? Also for all we know, rapback is a complete waste of time and the FBI takes our applications and throws them in their round circular file. Has anyone had their firearms confiscated by HPD for committing a crime that was reported by the FBI in the past 15 months?



From Wikipedia:
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[115] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[116] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[117]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[118]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[119] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[120]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[121] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[122]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Let's look at it...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What follows is widely accepted by experts in academia in regards to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Remember we are keeping the context of the era.

Why the words well regulated militia?

Well regulated, is accepted as well-armed, disciplined and organized.  Regulated of that era does not in this context refer to a restriction as we may "regulate" things today.  It was important to the Framers that they emphasize to "the people," that the security of a free State was reliant upon them, the militia and that they should remain "well regulated," or well-armed, well-disciplined, and well-organized.  Of course, today with our huge military and even State-run Guard units the militia has taken a much lesser role in the "free state" discussion, but most State Constitutions discuss militia. 

And the right of the People shall not be infringed?
seems almost contradictory. And what anti's and pro-2A's argue about.

First, as mentioned by New Guy, the framers of that day believed that men were created equal and every individual had natural or "unalienable rights," endowed upon them by the creator this includes, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  God-given rights could not be infringed upon by government rules.  Next, the militia was a State-based entity, comprised of "the people" and it was the duty of "the people" to be well armed, disciplined, and organized. Therefore the right "of the People" to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed.  Infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, and you essentially disarm the militia that is necessary to the security of a free state.  The militia supplied their own arms.  They were not housed in armories to be issued in time of need.

Shall not be infringed seems almost absolute.

It is absolute.  Shall not, means the same thing in today's legal settings.

Except the well regulated militia part.
( whicih the anti's grab)

We covered this above.  Antis would see things how they wish to see things to fit their narrative.  Anyone with half a brain who does some simple research will understand the absolute intent of the framers, even if it doesn't fit their agenda.  Heck just look at Madison who basically copied Virginia's Declaration of Rights when he wrote the Bill of Rights.  The Virginia Declaration pretty much lays it out and what his intent was when Madison wrote the Bill of rights.  That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I take regulated as equipped.

If it's about States rights, didn't that end with the civil war?

This is a separate topic.

Mods. Might move this topic to the general section.

Turned into a good read.

Thanks for all the well thought contributions.

I wonder what difference there would be if any, if they kept the "well armed" in addition to the "well regulated" in the text? Is it redundant or would it have other implications?

Understanding the above, what do the Supreme Court decisions chime in on all this?
Not that I'm too lazy to do my own research ( I am)
But Some of guys can bust this out off the top of your heads.
But this good info in a nutshell for any member talking to anti-2A's.
(In my opinion)

I see how the 2 sides to SCOTUS make their decisions

Conservatives take the original intent of the constitution and apply it to the modern day needs.

Liberals take the modern day needs and modify the intent of the Constitution to fit those needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Reception
The initial reactions of the Court's ruling were favorable from both the National Rifle Association[26] and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[27] Both issued statements to the public that they feel they were vindicated by the Court's holding. However, the court did not include a "clarification of the standard for review" as requested by the Brady group in their amicus brief.[28] In a discussion on the day of the ruling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the Court's ruling protected specifically against bans on handguns for "lawful purposes" such as self-protection in the home. But as to the general question of gun laws not covered in McDonald, a large number of lawsuits are needed in order to determine whether any other existing State gun regulations might also be unconstitutional. McDonald, supra., stated that the "2nd Amendment is 'fully applicable' to all of the States," but Wayne LaPierre expressed caution that the NRA has "a lot of work ahead" attempting to overturn other gun control regulations not covered by McDonald, while Paul Helmke voiced his personal opinion that the NRA was "going to lose most of those lawsuits".[29]

As has already been mentioned earlier in this thread regarding the Constitution of Virginia, this is what I like to direct people to when I get into a conversation as to what 2A is. Listening to some of my co-workers say stuff like "the right to bear arms is for the Militia! It says so right there! See?? Only the military is supposed to have guns!"  Then I have to explain that the militia is not the government military. It's comprised of everyday law abiding folks like you and me.  I refer them to the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was a model for the US Bill of Rights, that perhaps makes it more clear what the founders intended:

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As I read it, militias are mentioned as A reason, not THE reason. They obviously felt it important to mention this specific example but the structure of the sentence in no way indicates the militia is the only reason for the second amendment.

Militia equals the citizenry.

The entire citizenry if they so choose but only if they choose.

Militia equals the citizenry.

The entire citizenry if they so choose but only if they choose.

I believe the militia clause gets too much attention.

In order for a state to be free, it needs a militia or standing army. "A free state" is the definition of "living without tyranny".

Thus, the #1 priority of the 2A was to protect the right and ability to fight tyranny.

This was not a list of reasons why the 2A was created, but the top reason why the state (gov't) must protect this right, and must never violate it.

Even if the militia and free state clauses were deleted, the right remains -- separate and apart.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "why" is superfluous, but was added as a warning -- tyranny is a constant threat.  Be ready.

I agree but people love to argue the militia point.

There was a standing Army at that time.   The militia (armed citizenry) is also needed in time of defense.