Frosstbyte

I think there is little doubt, also, that the framers intended militia to mean just that, as they were a newly founded frontier nation which had won its independence based on irregular militias. The problem is that, rightly, that definition makes no sense anymore. We don't have colonial militias that preserve order and security.

You can rant all you want about how irregular militias are essential to protect us from the tyranny of government, and that's a wonderful notion, but the reality of the situation is that "irregular" militias barely exist on a national scale and certainly do not rise to the level of "being necessary to ensure the security of a free State." It's an antiquated use of the word militia combined with one of the worst phrased sections of the whole Constitution.

My point is that the 2nd Amendment, in and of itself, has horrible syntax at best and is anachronistic at worst. The way it's worded provides equally bad support for either a collective or an individual right all revolving around whatever the hell you want to make "well regulated militia" mean. I'm not saying your reading isn't a valid one, but it's hardly a clear, authoritative one and I think it's unlikely that either the country through the amendment process or the Supreme Court will ratify either that one or the alternative any time soon.