"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" No room for interpreations which would suggest the disarmament of the people, or the regulation of firearms, or what kind of firearms they should be allowed to own. Its pretty clear. The militia, before they are orgenaized, before they are called up, are the abled body men carrying the very arms a standing army of our day would carry. In 1776 it was muskets. In 1886 it was Henry rifles and cartridge pistols. Today it would be AR-15's and M-16's. Militia = A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group typically guarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. All abled body males considered by law eligble for military service, or a body of citizens as distinguished from professional soldiers, called up periodically for drills or serving full time only in emergencies. AR-15's and M-16's are exactly the kind of arms he 2nd amendment was meant to protect, because the purpose of it is to preserve a military capacity of the American people. Removing them, or banning them, or restricting them, would remove that capacity. The military power for domestic use is supposed to be in the hands of the American people, just like it is in Switzerland, for instance. To be there to balance and counter the state, if need be. Lastly. Those of you who don't believe armed civilians could do much against a well trained army have clearly not paid much attention, you also need to study more.