Reply #2: Well, you're equating two things that were polar opposites.. [View All]

[X_Digger]

'standing armies' were the antithesis of 'militia' in their eyes.

'Standing armies' had been used by tyrants to subjugate citizens across the world's history. A paid 'mercenary force' under control and beholden to a central authority (tyrant, oligarch, monarch, theocrat) was 180 degrees apart from the militia drawn from the armed citizenry, under direct state control but whose officers reported to the federal level authority. They figured that militias, drawn from local citizenry would be less likely to perpetrate tyranny.

Since the Dick Act of 1905, we have the organized militia (Natl guards) and the unorganized militia (basically everyone else.) With a few variances by state for age and / or sex, we are the unorganized militia.

If I were to rewrite the original 2nd amendment in modern language, I'd write it as:

"Since the ability to organize armed citizens is important for state and national security, the right of people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed."

Doesn't mean that the only reason for having armed citizenry is national and state security, that's just the most important reason to protect it- after all, the bill of rights doesn't grant rights, it's telling the government what rights it can't infringe on.