[phila]

"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."

I apologize up front if this is old ground, but I have never read or heard this point discussed that I can recall. My question is this: When one looks the word "state" up in the dictionary they will first find it defined as a "condition" or form of being.

I know that through out the history of the Bill of Rights the capitalization of that word (and many many others) has varied, somtimes back and forth from the ratification until present.

I guess my point is that I'm not sure that the language of the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with a State in the context of a political entity,goverment or territory, but rather with ensuring that the individual has a right to maintain a state of freedom and a well regulated militia is one means of protecting that right.

Over the many years that I have read it this, it seems to make much more sense than the more often interpeted meaning of the word state as it is used in the 2nd Amendment.

Any thoughts?