Amendment II
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.

Think about what the Second Amendment actually relates. First it contends that it is necessary to the security of a free state to allow for a well regulated militia. Then it demands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, for the aforementioned reason. It does not, however, necessarily exclude from consideration all other reasons for the people to keep and bear arms, merely because it only cites that which is arguably the most important reason for them to do so.

And just what exactly IS the reason mentioned in the text? In what way does the formation of a militia provide for "the security of a free State", and what exactly did James Madison, the amendment's author, mean by the term "free State" to begin with? Was he talking about the government or the people?

Consider this, if Madison had been referring to the government, there certainly wouldn't have been any need for him to afford citizens not already in the military the Constitutional right to possess fire[arms]. After all, the amendment being discussed is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was designed specifically for the purpose of defining the unforfeitable rights of average Americans. The very reason you have those rights is to protect you from government agencies which endeavor to expand their authority beyond acceptable limits.

We are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, not so that we can fight FOR the government, but in case we ever need to form a militia to fight AGAINST the government! To believe otherwise is nonsensical.

President Madison once wrote in the "Federalist Papers", the following passage in reference to a standing federal army. "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties..."

Now I ask you, if average citizens were not allowed by the government to keep and bear arms individually, how would they defend themselves against the potentially despotic rule of that government? The answer is obvious, they wouldn't be able to!

Some have argued that the term "well regulated", as it is used in the Second Amendment, means controlled by governmental agencies, but that is not the case. The term in question was commonly understood to mean 'properly functioning' back in the 18th century. A passage from the Oxford English Dictionary of the day provides the example "as in a well regulated clock" in reference to it. It is only in recent times that people automatically associate such words with the government.

That term was not added to the Second Amendment in order to enforce any particular standard, per se, but rather as a means of qualifying the statement "being necessary to the security of a free State". You see, in order for citizens to remain free, they must be afforded the ability to form a well regulated militia. A militia which is not well regulated (well trained and drilled) would be incapable of securing freedom. That's the only reason the term is mentioned. The first part of the amendment simply relates the reasoning behind the author declaring the second part, which is the actual right being discussed.

The fact of the matter is that the man who wrote the Second Amendment knew all too well that governments often grow to be more powerful than they should be, and recognized the necessity of affording the people the means with which to overthrow the powers that be if the need should arise. If you doubt that contention, then you should familiarize yourself with the Declaration of Independence.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Any attempt by the government to eradicate the Second Amendment would be tantamount to a crime against the American citizenry, perpetrated by a tyrannical group of people who seek only to enslave their fellow human beings. Keep that in mind the next time a bunch of politicians try to tell you that they have the authority to infringe upon your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. THEY DON'T!