I'll remember that. Well regulated doesn't have the plain meaning of well regulated and necessary for the security of a free State doesn't refer to a State at all. My fault.

I like my guns. Off to Montana in September and October, then Minnesota , South Dakota, Oklahoma , Kansas with my guns and bird dogs. I'll assure them that the second amendment is so clear that my individual right to bear arms is not in question . Nothing to be concerned about.

There are political powers that want to limit our freedom when it comes to firearms, they have tried in the past, present and will again in the future.

To get one to believe the term "well regulated" meant any federal government control of firearms one would have to believe that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers wanted to have some degree of control of citizen ownership and use of firearms. Really? This was following a rebellion against British authority who ordered gun control by force following the Boston Tea Party. Let's just say given the events and time period, I don't think so. It was the citizens ownership and use of private firearms that made the Revolution possible.

I
 

My ancestors were part of the Massachusetts Militia at the time of the revolution . They drilled, practiced maneuvers, had officers and were regulated. They were not part of unruly and ineffective mobs that could be cut to pieces by trained British infantry . A direct ancestor has a statue in his memory and a town named after him.

Yes I believe that the participants of the early constitutional conventions knew of the importance of the state militias and the ability of citizens to maintain arms in support of those militias. Of that I have no doubt. After the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was disbanded and it was not until 1789 that a single regular Army regiment was formed which had responsibility for a vast amount of territory. Well regulated state militias were of utmost importance. The US has always had a mix of standing and militia forces.

That's nice Bruce, good for you, my 4th Great Grandfather on my mother's side was a Patriot in the Revolution. I have no idea what they practiced for drills. Militia's were different than "Regulars" and they were considered undisciplined if not unruly by military commanders. When used in combat they were placed in front of the "Regulars", not to give them an advantage, not because they were somehow better, not to make them cannon fodder (at least not deliberately), it was to prevent a disorganized mass retreat in the face of the enemy. They were less likely to do so if they had to run through lines of the Regulars.

We have very different understandings of the role of state militias during the Revolutionary War.

Read your own citation , smart gun laws. You can still carry a handgun while hunting. There are many exceptions.

the Massachusetts militias of the earliest days were of one class of soldier - they stood their ground on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge, fought a running battle back to Boston and manned "Bunker Hill"

the lesser reputation of the militias was formed by the longer war, they were known for not standing up the the British regulars (a hellatious task) - As the war in the south advanced General Greene and Daniel Morgan used that to their advantage at Cow Pens - the militia was told they were not expected to hold- all that was asked of them was to fire two volleys before they broke. when they did and the British gave chase thinking the field was theirs - they instead ran into steady and firm troops that held and fired and took the day, the devastation of that day led to Guilford Courthouse which drove Cornwallis to fire his cannon into his own troops and forced him to Yorktown in hopes of resupply or rescue

and that is as they say - the rest of the story

The militias were so lightly regulated they were not considered to be reliable. However in many situations they were effective. At the battle of the Cowpens Brigadier General Daniel Morgan chose to fight on open country with a river in his rear, this was considered high risk as it allowed the British to able to more effectively use their cavalry and provided a difficult route of retreat. It was risky move, when asked why he did this he said "I would not have had a swamp in view of my militia on any consideration; they would have made for it, and nothing could have detained them from it. As to retreat, it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. When men are forced to fight, they will sell their lives dearly. Had I crossed the river, one-half of the militia would immediately have abandoned me."

My great grand mother Nellie Putnam thanks you. The Putnams were at Concord and Bunker Hill. Others were with the Wisconsin Regiments at Gettysburg.

The well regulated state militias of the day in the Revolutionary War and subsequent wars held the line against the best of the enemy.

I have read in the dim past that in the usage of the day that well regulated referred to well equipped or\and well trained. I do not think the authors had any intention of restrictions.