I agree with most of what has been said, but what is not made clear in the above is the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. The full debate in the House and articles in several of the Anti-federalist publications of the time clarify it. Also, Secretary of War (General) Knox's plan for organizing the militia, which was never put into practice, gives an excellent understanding of the purpose and intended organization of the militia. The founding fathers had a great distrust of standing armies because they saw its use by monarchs over the centuries to suppress citizens. The Second Amendment gives up its meaning when understood in terms of preventing the rise of a standing army by having initial recourse to the militia. "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." The purpose of the guarantee of access to arms is to guarantee the viability of the militia, which without arms would be useless. The term regulated in Colonial times refers to a regular or regulated force. The term regulars was sued in referring to the British regulars that the colonials fought. A regulated force is one that is organized, trained and armed. Note that the Second Amendment states that a well regulated militia, not just a haphazard group of men, was intended. The term well regulated obviously infers an organized, well trained and equipped group. Also, note that the Second Amendment refers to the security of a free state. The militia might be used to defend the state, the nation, if necessary, as part of an army called to action, but the initial purpose of the Second Amendment's militia is to protect a free state; to prevent the freedom of the state, to keep it free. The founding fathers were very specific in their use of terms in constructing the Second Amendment, as it was the most highly debated Amendment. Even Hamilton, an evil centrist, states in the Federalist papers that the Revolution could not have been won with the militia alone, but neither could the army have won the war without the militia. The Federal army was intended to consist of "experts", professionals who would form the basis of the army, a small standing army; but a second force, the militia, which was to be well regulated (read well trained and armed ) was to be at the ready to support the core army in time of national emergency. Their existence was to prevent the need for recourse to a permanent standing army, which the colonials distrusted. What we have today is the worst of all situations. We have a mercenary force, an all volunteer force, a standing army, much like some of the forces that the British used during the revolution. The Hessians are an example. Compare the recent situation in Egypt, where almost the entirety of the population has served in the army. There the army is a standing army, but it is reflective of the army that we had through the Viet Nam period. That reason is why the ant-war protests during Viet Nam were much longer in duration than the protests over Iraq and Afghanistan. The soldiers then were conscripts, average citizens called to duty. Today, we have an army that is professional and mercenary. I cannot imagine an American tank commander allowing an American citizen to sleep between the treads of his tank. There just isn't that connection between the citizens and the current Army, regardless of how their ties to their families and the community is portrayed. American soldiers today are trained at population control, which in an uprising would be their primary role. Incidentally, I find it very pleasing to see the Gerry quote being discussed, as I sold it for years printed on a t-shirt through an ad in Shotgun News, and will soon be selling it from a site on the web.