> I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving p

> I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means. Well-regulated includes well-armed and that is what it means in context. How I would put it in modern language: It's important that a large portion of the populace can be called upon to fight against threats to freedom and society. To ensure that the citizens are prepared to do so, they must be allowed to keep and practice with weapons of war. Personally, I'm fine with discussing a repeal of the 2nd amendment; it's a perfectly valid question if it makes sense in a modern context. But that question is mostly academic since it's so politically unlikely to happen as it has broad support and the evidence against it isn't supermajority-level.