In the context of the time when it was written, "militia" meant the entire male population of military age. You can look up period law codes and find this kind of definition. It wasn't a legal fiction, either; that was the only civil defense most communities had, and threats were fairly common (e.g. Indian raids).

The plain meaning of the second amendment, in this context, is that _anyone_ is allowed to own arms, because everyone is expected to take responsibility for defending themselves and the community. There's also another layer; "militia" is as opposed to "standing army", and "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" thus means that the militia (that is, the population at large) needs to be armed well enough to resist tyrannical impositions by a standing army.

Yes, even if you take the period definition of militia, that doesn't mean the clause is meaningless today, it just means the context of the amendment is archaic. The fact that the meaning is still twisted:

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

to mean tyrannical impositions by a standing army of the same state, as opposed to a foreign state, is categorically ridiculous.

It quite obviously meant both. The British army, against whom the people who wrote that clause had just finished fighting a revolution, was an army of "the same state" when the fighting was happening.

Any attempt to deny that the founders were very worried about tyranny imposed by the government of the country in question, and intended the second amendment (among other things) to allow the citizens to resist against the army of that government, is outright ahistorical.

> It quite obviously meant both.

The amendment is quite short and easy to quote; the pro-gun crowd actually hates this one little trick:

> 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.

There is no "obviously we mean our own government" rather than foreign invaders the militias (like the Swiss ones around since pre-revolutionary times) are typically meant to deal with.

...The pro-gun crowd are the ones who constantly quote the amendment verbatim. They don't "hate" it.

And yes, it doesn't explicitly say in the text of the amendment what kinds of threats the militia is meant to defend "the security of a free state" from. This is why you need to make obvious deductions based on context. There's certainly no basis, either in the literal text or in contextual deduction, for the idea that the founders only meant it as security against foreign invasion.

While I happen to agree and appreciate your input, let's avoid words like hypocracy for now. It tends to nurture hostility and I'm trying to get some real insight.

I'm not sure he was attacking anyone here. You need to compare (I mean really read) the majority opinion in Heller with the dissenting opinions. "Hypocrisy" is one word that leaps to mind from time to time, particularly in light of the magnitude of the changes and the way the author of the majority decision is supposedly an originalist and strict constructionist.

Hi Justin.

It's not that I disagree. In fact, I too believe it to be intrinsically hypocritical than not the more I've re-read it since I posed my initial question. HOWEVER, how we talk about things can be colored by our choice of words. The original poster is correct, but offers no examples from the case document. I believe when we state what we believe to be true, but don't support it directly may be somewhat counter productive to the more open discussion. I appreciate your feedback.

Devils advocate: Mincing words and dancing around language can sometimes lead us away from solutions or understanding. I'm taking a risk. :)