Anyone Recognize This?

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 realize that education in our government controlled public school system today fails miserably in teaching everything but government dependence.  Therefore reading comprehension is not exactly a strong suit anymore, but the one sentence above is fairly simple and straightforward.  There is absolutely nothing, not a single word, about hunting deer.  In fact, I do believe the only animal mentioned in the Second Amendment is a bear.  Upon further inspection, the word "bear" in the Amendment is not the noun, but rather a verb meaning to hold, own or possess.  There is nothing in the single sentence comprising the Second Amendment that protects citizens' right to own a firearm in order to hunt deer, ducks, elk, moose, or even bears.  There is not a single word about owning a handgun or any type of firearm in order to protect yourself or your family from a meth-crazed maniac or a post-Apocalypse zombie.  

Break the single sentence down into its two components; "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the first key.  A well-regulated militia is a well-equipped, i.e. well-armed, population of civilians, not federal troops, civilians.  Why do we need a well-armed population?  It's necessary to the security of a free state.  That's pretty easy to understand, right?  The founding fathers believed that having a well-armed civilian population was necessary not only for hunting or protecting individuals, their homes, their property.  A well-armed civilian population was necessary for the security of a free state.  Why did our founders believe that it was necessary?   

First of all, an armed population was necessary to protect itself against attack from Native Americans and other aggressors trying to take property from citizens of the newly created nation.  If you think that personal private property is no longer susceptible to attack from forces hostile to the United States, do an internet search for stories about citizens of the United States protecting their property and lives and begging the federal government for assistance in protecting their property and their lives along the southern border.  Citizens along the southern border are under attack daily by invaders from a foreign country.  If you really want an eye opener do a little research about terrorists from overseas and their ability to invade our borders, northern and southern.  

Most importantly our founders included the Second Amendment as a counterbalance to the power they were granting the federal government.  They had just fought a bloody and costly war to win their independence from a central government that they considered tyrannical and power hungry.  When our government today passes healthcare legislation that will impact the lives of 100% of the population and is supported by approximately 45% of that population; when our government sues a state for enforcing federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce; when our government takes, through threat of force,  more and more of the money its citizens work for and earn, then passes that money on to organizations like Planned Parenthood and whatever name ACORN is operating under today; when our government is racking up annual deficits of over $1,000,000,000,000 a year, money that will somehow have to be paid by our children and grandchildren; it's pretty easy to see the dangers of a power hungry federal government.  When our newly re-elected president proposes 23 executive actions in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, specifically because these actions would never survive the process required to change the Constitution, it's easy to see the seeds of tyranny.  Exactly the reasons the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

Another common argument against the Second Amendment is that, even with the evil assault weapons in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, an army of civilians, a "well-regulated Militia," would stand no chance against the most powerful military in history.  In general those who favor this argument would also point out the failure of that same most powerful military in Korea, Vietnam, and today in Afghanistan against an army of civilians.  So it should be obvious that a well-regulated militia, a well-armed civilian army, is as necessary today as it was in 1789.

The second component of the single sentence Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  First of all, keeping and bearing arms is a right.  In the view of the founders, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, a right is granted by God or Nature's god.  The right to protect yourself, your property, and your State, your country, your beliefs is granted by God or Nature's god.  It is not a power granted to the federal government to limit the citizen's ability to protect these things.  The founders, in the Supreme law of our country, the very foundation of our country, stated that the right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  I don't know how much more clear the founders could be short of using the phrase popularized by Moses Charlton Heston, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."  I recognize the Second Amendment.  I recognize the wisdom of our founding fathers in including it in the Constitution.  I recognize the necessity of the Second Amendment, today and in 1789.  When well-educated, I'm assuming well-intentioned, people do not recognize the absolute lunacy of our modern power hungry, borderline tyrannical federal government attempting to illegally circumvent the supreme law of our nation, I'm not sure I recognize "us" anymore.