com/gc2ndpur.html). The purpose of including the clause "A well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment which states, "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" (http://gunnerynetwork.com/files/historic.html) has been interpreted by some to mean that the right to bear arms is limited to the members of well-regulated state militias. But the Founding Fathers thought it was necessary for every citizen to have the opportunity to protect himself from abuse of power by any government and therefore would not limit the ability to own weapons to members of an institution run by any government. .
In fact, the reason the Founding Fathers included the clause "A well-regulated militia" was solely to ensure the Federal Government would not be able to stop or inhibit any citizen from taking advantage of their right to bear arms. Samuel Adams best sums up this idea in his statement, "the constitution shall never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe to prevent the people of The United States from keeping their own arms. Congress has no power or disarm the militia" (http://jpfo.org/sixaboutsecond.html). The statement shows that Adams, one of the most influential Founding Fathers, feels it is essential that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" irrespective of any governmental attempts to limit this fundamental right. The purpose of a well-regulated militia is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government and give every citizen an organized opportunity to join forces to defend their liberty, family, and property if need be (http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html). .
In order to truly grasp the Founding Fathers intentions" for the Second Amendment, one must decipher what effect the wording would have had during the late 1700's. Historically, the phrase that has caused much of the controversy is the first clause "A well regulated militia.
