In my opinion, the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" serve as a preamble to the second part of the amendment which grants the right: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The people are the militia, as distinguished from the forces created and controlled by the government.
I understand that that's your opinion, and that it is a widely held and very well respected opinion in the USA today.
I reject it utterly.
The idea that the government of the day were seeking to allow an armed force to exist that was outside their direct control is absurd.
They needed the people to be available to fight on behalf of the government, against foreign forces, specifically: The English, (who were less than enthusiastic about their colonies having been stolen); The Native Americans, (who were less than enthusiastic about their country having been stolen); and The slaves, (who were less than enthusiastic about having been stolen from their countries).
They did not need a bunch of fuckwits with delusions of importance to be able to contradict the (allegedly) lawful governments of the newly created Republic, nor did they expect people to be allowed to just shoot each other for any reason they wanted.
Every patriotic American who wants to join in as part of the militia, to keep the English, the Indians, and the Niggers in their place must be allowed to do so. That's what the second amendment is about. And as the new government is penniless and without the resources to equip these militias, it's going to be done on a "bring your own guns and ammo" basis.
Of course my interpretation is hugely unpopular, and flies in the face of a great number of national myths that Americans truly love, cherish, and believe.
But the crucial difference between your opinion and mine is that yours doesn't really fit in with the historical realities of the time, nor with the basic political realities that apply at all times and places throughout history; While mine absolutely does.
People aren't
nice, and they don't grant power to others because it's the right thing to do. People (particularly slave owners who are building a new country, that they just stole from a world power, who just stole it from a bunch of belligerent indigenes) aren't noble benefactors of a glorious new society of free men and women. But they are more than happy to be thought of that way, when the reality is that they're aware of a gaping vacuum in their power, and need a bunch of hapless volunteers to stand in place of the armies they can't afford.
The idea that the new government wanted to create a force that could keep the new government in check is ridiculous. They wanted to create a force that
they themselves could wield against their three major threats, without having to pay the very steep cost of maintaining such a force.
And that's bloody obvious to anyone who didn't grow up steeped in the mythology that Americans have spent the last two and a half centuries spinning around this rather ignoble, but immensely practical, compromise.
"Tyranny of the government" my arse. The government never saw themselves as tyrannical, nor ever able to become so under the terms of their shiny new constitution.
