As an American from the midwest (where 2nd Amendment issues are debated most hotly), it's been my understanding that the pro-gun crowd interprets it to mean that "because it's necessary for private citizens to be asked to form a spontaneous, irregular civil defense force, private citizens shall be allowed to own firearms."
So it's not that you have to join a militia in order to own a firearm; it's that you own firearms so that you can join a militia, if needed.
That said there's never been a civilization in the history of mankind where you didn't have to earn the right to bear weapons. So I think barriers to gun ownership are a good idea. I think sweeping bans on weapons aren't necessary, but I support measures like a national ballistics database and other technological means (including mandated retrofitting of weapons) that would mean that every fired bullet could be matched to a gun and a fingerprint.
The gun debate has its pro's and con's undoubtedly. Sifting for right answers out of the detritus of wrong one's is a difficult thing to do. And yet,
here, Crashfrog very eloquently, conscientiously, fairly, and realistically captures, what I believe to be the essence and the intent of the Drafters of the Second Amendment.
"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton
™ Version 4.2
