I have been reading the many and several interpretations of the Second 
Amendment to the Constitution; and I must say that I disagree with all 
of them that I have seen here.

The chief point of contention, apparently, is centered around the 
phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
free state..."

Now, some people interpret the Second Amendment to say that the freedom 
to bear arms should thus only belong to a well regulated militia.  Other 
people interpret this to say that *all* people should have the right to 
bear arms; but they need to be trained into a well regulated 
militia...and still others regard this clause as the establishment of 
the states-controlled National Guard.  Of course, the National Guard 
actually answers to Federal authority instead of State authority, which 
is yet another casualty of the Civil War, and the South's then-ignorant 
attitude towards slavery. (I am a southerner!)

*I* however, would say; that *since* a highly trained army is *required* 
for a nation to remain free from invasion and and being conquered; the 
founders *knew* that we would eventually have a standing army.  
Therefore; seeing as how a standing army is *always* a threat against 
individual liberties...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be 
infringed.

In other words; the first clause of the Second Amendment is giving the 
reason *why* the second clause is there...and then the second clause is 
the establishment of our right to bear arms.  Therefore; they were 
saying that 'since we are eventually going to have to have an army to 
remain free, (and an army is a threat to liberty) then the people *must* 
have the right to bear arms.'

To me, this is an entirely different perspective; and it more closely 
matches the natural reading of how the passage was authored.  Taking my 
perspective into account, read again the wording of the Second Amendment:

          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.

Now; since the most natural reading of the Second Amendment is inclusive 
of the fact that the *reason* the population has the right to bear arms 
is *because* there would be a standing army (which has always been a 
thread to individual liberties) any other reading is made in an effort 
subvert the right to bear arms; in order to impose the power of a 
standing army *against* individual liberty.

I am not saying that such subversion is intentional; but rather it is 
cultural and traditional.  

It is well documented amongst the writings of the founders that the 
reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people would be 
well-armed in order to prevent the federal government from becoming an 
opressive regime.  That being so, then since the *natural* reading of 
the Second Amendment supports that view directly, then how come there 
are scores of different interpretations of this amemdment, and not one 
of them takes into account this most natural reading?

As for myself, I am a student of scriptures; and I have time and time 
again seen the natural reading of a passage subverted to tradition, and 
the people who read a traditional meaning into the verse of scripture 
read it time and time again; and the plainly read meaning simply never 
occurs to them.  That is because tradition has taught them that it means 
something slightly different.

So also do I believe that tradition and culture have subverted the clear 
and plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

-- 
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit
those guarantees." President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993