[seanmcdirmid]

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.

[alethiophile]

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

> 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.

[alethiophile]

...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.