There are very few words in the 2nd Amendment and most people do not have the slightest idea of their meaning or what was being referred to. I have put together an extensive file of materials around this Amendment however I find it still necessary to discuss what the words mean.
The words are simple --
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The first term to explain is militia. The militia of the time was comprised of all adult males in law. In rhetoric people felt so strongly of it that it was all the people. Words such as, "what is the militia? It is the whole of the people" were common.
This was both rhetoric and statement of the intention of the new Constitution as the fear was exactly that the central government would move to oppress the people, to take away god given rights, and the only means to stop such an occurrence was with the use of the force of arms by the citizens of the states.
One needs to remember that United States citizenship had not been invented at that time. The Constitution was solely an agreement between the states for mutual cooperation and general benefit of the people. The preamble "We the People of the United States" was not a statement of the concept of citizenship as all citizen interaction with the US government was via the state governments.
The militia was separate and distinct from any army as both the militia and armies are addressed separately in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is not debatable that the intent of the Constitution was to severely limit the existence of standing armies by requiring funding be limited to two years intervals while it put no such limitation upon the Navy. Further the first Militia Act set no limits whatsoever upon the militia but only sets minimum standards.
This concept of the militia was a continuation from before the country began and continues down to the present day. The idea of an armed citizenry as the primary means of defense extends back at least one thousand years in English Law. It is found in the Magna Carta and in laws requiring certain types of arms by one's station in life. It continues today in the United States Code.
Today's United States Code varies little from the original concept from England. Every male from 18 to 45 is a member and women are mentioned in the National Guard. The USC clearly distinguishes between the National Guard as the organize militia and the unorganized militia as the rest of us. The militia is a very old concept and holds simply that the defense of the community is based upon the members of the community just as the defense of the family depends upon the family.
The modifier to militia, that being a well regulated militia, is perhaps the most misunderstood. In those days regulated did not mean the same as passing regulations. Thus, the fact there are no regulations does not negate the existence of the militia today.
Well regulated meant creating a degree of uniformity that would increase the militia's effectiveness. The original Militia Act passed by Congress did exactly that, establishing the age limits, the minimum size of rifle bore and other things with which every member was required by law to equip himself.
Note the last term, equip himself. No government provided these weapons or equipment. This too goes back far into English history. Thus you can see the importance of imposing some degree of uniformity or, in the word of the day, regulation. When people provide their own equipment they could have shown up with blunderbusses, shotguns, squirrel guns (small bore), even pistols. The variety of support equipment such as spare flints, patches, shot would not have lead to effectiveness. Thus, a uniform, a well regulated militia was what was necessary.
The next term is state. That meant exactly the word state as in the United States of America. It meant state as in state of Virginia or state of New York. It did not mean state as in a reference to nation such as Germany or England and obviously not to the United States as that is a plural name.
The necessity of the militia for a free state was against the power of the new government of the United States of America. A powerful central government was viewed with the greatest trepidation. It was clearly expected a central government would become oppressive to the states and the people of the states. Jefferson clearly expected a central government to become perverted so quickly that he expected a revolution every twenty years.
This concern is clear in the construction of the Constitution to grant the new government certain specific powers and no more powers, reserving to the states and the people all rights not specifically granted to the new government. As to the militia it was granted the power of regulation which meant to establish the minimum requirements for the militias of the states as it was also granted to power to call out the state militias to suppress insurrection and repel invasions and thus some kind of national uniformity was necessary.
The US government was not given the power to prohibit guns to the militia (and thus the citizens who were it members as establishing uniformity of weaponry would not fall under the meaning of regulation. Again, as to the stated meaning at the time, "that no man be debarred the use of guns," is a typical statement. This was not empty rhetoric but rather a promise required to establish the US Constitution in the first place. As a social contract it is pre-eminent.
Many of the founders, those who wrote or supported the new Constitution, expressed exactly the concern in that it was for the defense of the freedom of each state and in fact in the 2nd itself with reference to the free state. The new central government was granted very few and limited powers with regard to the militias. What was not granted was the most significant power, the power of organization and the appointment of officers.
The right of the people would appear to hardly need an explanation but to many it does. The people refers to exactly who it says, the people, you and me. Of course that is now and always has been almost synonymous with the people but there is not the slightest indication there was ever the slightest intention to make militia participation a condition on the possession of guns.
Even if the argument is forwarded that it refers only the members of the militia, the response is that "the militia is the whole of the people." That is part of the contract for the very existence of the US Government. Contract violation leads to dissolution of the contract. It is not a matter for arbitration or dispute, the contract is dissolved at that point.
Keep and bear arms of course keep and bear means possession, ownership, control and use of. This was limited in no way to those actually participating in the militia any more than it would be reasonable to limit books to very literate people.
Arms meant the military arms of the time, pistols, rifles and cannon and the then exotic but primitive weapons of the time such as rockets. There were no central armories, only powder magazines and that was only because of the hazard of storing large amounts of black powder in one place, that special conditions were needed for safety.
There is no suggestion that any type of weapon was considered unsuitable for a citizen to keep and carry. In fact the first requirement on the militia, one of the powers delegated to Congress was to set the minimum requirement for the weapons that had to be owned by all men of militia age and these were those most effective in combat. By any rational consideration today it is precisely military style weapons that would be protected from any restrictions while hunting weapons might be open to restrictions.
The one that feels the strangest to explain is, shall not be infringed. To those who appear to misunderstand that I often reply, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It means simply there shall be no limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms.
As to this interpretation changing over time you will find in every state Constitution a provision almost identical to the 2nd Amendment, many times going further in the guarantee of the reasons for the provision to include self defense and always adding the defense of the state. Considering these provisions are in the Constitutions of Hawaii and Alaska which were admitted in the 1950s it is difficult to accept there was any change in meaning up until that time some 170 years later.
There is no possible way to make the case that in the 1950s when every modern weapon existed that a case can be made for a change in the meaning of the words in less than 40 years. Those state constitutions were formally approved by Congress as part of the process for those territories to become states. It is obvious Congress agreed with the words as written at that time.
The 2nd Amendment does have a clear meaning that, when viewed in the context of the intentions, traditions, customs and word usage of the time, the meaning is clear. Everyone has the right to guns. It is also clear the objections raised to that meaning are based upon a failure to understand the 2nd Amendment in its historic context.
As to the need for reinterpreting it in light of today, no one can rationally hold that the US Government is not more oppressive and burdensome today than it has ever been in its entire history. And the concern that that might happen is precisely the purpose for the 2nd Amendment. To argue it is no longer needed flies in the face of precisely what is happening.
Another favored fall back argument is that the citizens could not prevail against the power of the US Government in combat. That is a clarion call to begin dismantling the power of the US Government before it becomes more blatantly oppressive. It is certainly not a justification to disarm. A preemptive surrender is not an effective deference.
Another is the attempt to push the clear meaning to an absurd level, saying it must include nuclear weapons, and since that is unacceptable then it is legitimate to restrict handguns. This is similar to saying that since there is a legitimate public interest in preventing a person from owning a pride of lions and letting them loose in the neighborhood that the ownership of housecats can be prohibited.
Rather a similar rule of prudence would apply requiring the owner of the lions to provide adequate cages so to would reasonable safeguards be required of those who would own nuclear weapons. There have been similar laws regarding powder magazines as far back as people began storing black powder.
The most insidious reason is to point to today's crime rate as a reason to disarm the citizenry. This flies in the face of many state Constitutions in that possession for self defense is specifically guaranteed by state Constitutions. But the insidious nature of this argument is that it only disarms the victims never the criminals.
Clearly, in the face of simply knowing what was intended and implemented by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, arguments holding guns can be restricted fall. The right of everyone to keep and bear arms is more than clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment.