I actually interpret this a little differently...the Militia as being the military, but "well-regulated" meaning that the people keep them in check. If the first step to oppression of a people is the seizure of their weapons, then a military working among unarmed people could pretty much do as they please.Let's look at the text of 2A and rebuke the antis:
"A well-regulated Militia, (composed of individuals not working for the government) being necessary to the security of a free State
I have.You should read some (or all!) of the Federalist Papers,
That's what I just said. The only difference is that I said the 2A mentions the military as "militia" and says that it needs to be kept in check by the armed People. At the time, the militia was the military - there wasn't much of a distinction between the two. They didn't have massive organization and a MIC yet.The whole point of a "Militia" was because of the fear of a standing army (The Military) - the whole of "the People" being armed (The Militia - the basic point behind the Second Amendment) was to be able to counter the possible tyranny of a standing army directed by the governing body (as was a problem in European countries in prior history - NOT to be repeated in the new United States of America).
A people's militia is more important today than it has ever been before. Unfortunately there's not many of them.The public sees and hears of "militia's" as an anti-government, unsanctioned, bunch of red necks (hate that term, but that is the public perception), out playing soldier in the boonies.
to "modernize" it. No doubt they would want the 2nd Amendment replaced with something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law infringing upon a woman's right to abortion".