Second Amendment Says the Opposite of What Many Say it Says

   Jackie Biskupski, Salt Lake City's mayor, calling for gun control, makes an argument. "We believe in the words of the Second Amendment," she is quoted as saying in a Deseret News article, "especially the beginning, 'Well regulated.' "
   Ahh, then, is that what the wording in the Second Amendment means? Does "well regulated," mean well controlled and government regulated?
   I've never though much on the first phrase of the Second Amendment. It is the second phrase that has always caught my attention. But, Biskupski's suggestion got me thinking. Does the Second Amendment actually say exactly the opposite of what many interpret it to say? Many say, the reason we need to have guns is to protect ourselves from our own government taking our freedoms away, to protect against the possible tyranny of our own government.
   Is that what the Second Amendment is about?
   Or do the words of the short little amendment say just the opposite? Biskupski suggests it is saying guns should be regulated, but actually, it is saying the militia should be regulated. That implies that the militia is the government's militia, not a militia rising up against the government. After all, you don't regulate something you don't control.
   As I sit here, I think more on the wording of the Second Amendment, specifically on what the founding fathers were trying to suggest when they spoke of, 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State." I would suggest, in saying, "a well regulated militia," they probably were referring to a well-organized militia. "Being necessary to the security of a free State," most likely indicates we would lose being free from other nations if we did not have a national defense. If it said, "being necessary to the security of the State," instead of, "free State," it would clearly be referring to defending this country from other countries, not rising a squad to guard against this government becoming tyrannical. Does the word "free," then, take away from that? I think not. I think they were simply suggesting this is a free nation.
  At any rate, it says, "State," not "Citizenry." It is the state that is to be protected.
   Back then, I would guess, much of the arming of the militia consisted of those enlisting bringing their own arms. So, the Second Amendment is simply saying: A well-organized and adequately armed defense being necessary to protect this nation, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be limited, lest the citizens not have arms to bring with them when they enlist.
  So that you can reflect on whether the interpretation I offer is correct, the Second Amendment says, "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."
   In closing, I would note that regardless the reason the Constitution gives for not restricting weapons -- regardless what the first phrase says -- that does not change what the second phrase says. There is to be no infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. There is to be no impeding on gun ownership no restrictions on bearing arms. You can say this part of the Constitution has been outdated, since we no longer bring our own weapons with us when we enlist in the military, but unless we change the Second Amendment, unless we amend it, what it calls for is what it calls for.
  "Shall not be infringed" remains the law, and the highest law in the land.