the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed". — BB100

How would you interpret "for the common defence"?

You need to understand 'line breaks'.

"For the common defense brings two meanings of the whole. First of all, it means one may keep guns and have them on them for use for the community around you like invasion, insurrection itself, or such. If you look at the beginning of the Constitution it say the that we provide the common defense. This also states that the right to keep and bear arms does not require any condition to have arms or bear them because there is no condition for the final draft of the second amenment.

It's possible you've written something that might be of interest, although given the topic that's very unlikely. My problem is that you apparently haven't proof read your submission, the result being that the incoherence keeps me from understanding what your point is.

Let's try this. In just a few well-crafted sentences, Try expressing what you think the 2d amendment says.

There was no standing army at that time, so a militia was necessary for defense.
Furthermore advanced weaponry might have been a rifled musket, capable of getting off a shot after reloading, so they probably did not envision military assault weapons in the hands of large numbers of individual citizens.

Times change, weaponry changes, society changes and so what served as wisdom in the 18th century may not serve us well in the 21st century.

That is another discussion, but the matter is they saw no need to have one and if they did the third amendment points to the relation with the people. The founders obviously knew that weaponry would advance for there existed sungle multibarrell guns, and the cannons which Jefferson said a private company could use to take ships. Weaponary has changed but that would only mean that the USA army is more powerful in nature relative to the citizens which Hamilton was saying such may not be as he says in the federalist papers.

Second amendment is civilians are free from the federal government infringing on them possessing and use of arms which are arms useful in fighting.

This changed with the 14th amendment so theoretically states are no longer legally able to regulate it.

"Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time"
So, your contention is that they intended to never be done "revolting"?

Personally, I like that part where it refers to "the right"... something that, by the way, was never previously established. The question is, WHAT RIGHT??? No right to arms had been established in any text. It is almost like they thought that right existed before they got there!

The only way an anti gun advocate could possibly use the 2nd Amendment AGAINST gun owners is to interpret it something like
"We grant the right to militia to keep and bear arms...but no one else"

Rather the theory would be that the people were ready to revolt should the goverment becomes tyrannical.

Bill of rights 1689, one example and state constitutions, as well as others.

Another matter is it should be argued by a person that the right is only for those in the militia is why not just had "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." A person would easily say that in order for a militia to work properly it need to have weapons that are competent for the situation, and members among the citizens and the federal government should not interfere with such.

So if the 2nd amendment was for a militia, there would be not right to keep and bear arms for the people

Second amendment is civilians are free from the federal government infringing on them possessing and use of arms which are arms useful in fighting. — BB100

That is, the federal government cannot infringe on your possession and use of arms (such arms being useful in fighting)? Is that your take? Tell you what, go visit Trump with your AK strapped on and see how close you get, or even how far you get. More important is that there are no absolute rights in the constitution. This point is ably made by Justice Souter at Harvard (see Youtube).

Further, your understanding is, appaently, that all civilians "are free" in this regard. Really? All civilians?

Being kept from the from the president would not hinder your ability to keep and bear arms(could be artillery technically). But are you gonna argue my points or on the implications of my point? People because even one who is not a citizen as claimed by the second amendment. Citizens when it comes to states for the immunities and protection clause that made a majority of the bill of rights applicable to states. All citizens are applicable to the right.

I think that the definitive statement on interpreting the meaning of the US 2'd Amendment might be the US Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

My own view:

I think that at the time the 2'd Amendment was written, the issue of whether the young United States should create a professional standing army was being hotly debated. The alternative to a standing army was hastily raising a militia of armed citizens if the need arose. This is basically what happened during the early stages of the American revolution

The 'yes' side argued (plausibly) that a force of trained professional soldiers would be far more effective in fighting wars than a hastily assembled band of citizen solders.

The 'no' side argued (plausibly) that a force of trained professional soldiers could very easily turn against the people and become an engine of tyranny. Remember that these were people for whom the American Revolution was a living memory, for whom the British army and its Hessian mercenaries represented just such an oppressive force..

So the Framers did as they often did and compromised, favoring a situation of 'checks-and-balances'. They authorized the federal government to raise a standing army (small at first), and they guaranteed the people's right to possess arms so as to be able to defend their own liberty if need be.

might be the US Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller. — yazata

Might be. Might not be. The Supreme court doesn't always get it right - although admittedly we're stuck with it when they don't.

But have you read Heller? Maybe you haven't. In a sentence or two, what do you think it says?

It was Scalia trying to make sure gun regulations were kept and the the individual right but that approach would be dishonest since they are incompatible. What he could have done is say gun regulation of the sorts is unconstitutional and if you disagree than change the constitution with Article 5. Now I have make a point on how The Court has been making lies of the constitution out of need to keep social fabric or other reasons.

asks: "In a sentence or two, what do you think it says?"

As indicated in the precis of the decision, the Court's decision has three parts. The first two address the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment, the third addresses the particular issue that brought this particular case before the Court. This was the District of Columbia enacting a total ban on private possession of handguns.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53

In justifying this, they go into great detail about the history of bearing arms, the various disputes that had arisen about it, and British common law on the subject. Under (b), they address the more contemporary (for the Framers) issue that I outlined in my earlier post:

The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia could be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

For example, using a weapon in commission of a crime can be illegal, felons and the mentally ill can be prohibited from possessing weapons, and it isn't illegal to require some training in use of a firearm.

3. The handgun ban... violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Well done! Paragraph #2, and the dissents, make clear that the 2d amendment right (like most others) is not absolute. Regulation and the possibility of regulation is not ruled off the table - a point 2d amendment nuts usually ignore.

The entire text of #2 is relevant:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

But paragraph #3 is the finding:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

From further along:

Thus, we do not read the
Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry
arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read
the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.

And finally, the summary form the majority opinion:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
* * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

And that would seem to leave plenty of room to regulate firearm ownership and to regulate the types of arms or weapons available to the public. What is not allowed is to ban handguns entirely or require that they be rendered useless for self defense. The legislature I believe could ban ownership or sale of military assault weapons, or of armor piercing and other types of dummy ammunition, both of which would seem to be of little general use for sport hunting or self defense for that matter. The terms "arms" requires some definition as it is not likely anyone thinks individuals (members of the public) need to own tanks, bazookas, surface to air or ballistic missiles or chemical and biologic weapons. We could remove the most dangerous weapons (those most often involved in mass causality incidents) without impairing the "right" to bear arms. Such "right" requires definition as does the term "arms" so entailed.

I agree.

This case was wrongly decided since self defense is not a mentioned or implied by definition for keep and bear arms. We know this because as I mentioned a former draft of the constitution was thrown away saying, " a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed. since The right has no condition after it, that means a reason is not need to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning any weapon useful for killing or destroy enemies at the time the use of the word was made. With the 14th, any regulation prohibiting arms is illegal at federal and state. Also a right is set can not have exceptions except when stated or changed through Article 5.

This case was wrongly decided since self defense is not a mentioned or implied by definition for keep and bear arms. We know this because as I mentioned a former draft of the constitution was thrown away saying, " a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed. since The right has no condition after it, that means a reason is not need to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning any weapon useful for killing or destroy enemies at the time the use of the word was made. With the 14th, any regulation prohibiting arms is illegal at federal and state. Also a right is set can not have exceptions except when stated or changed through Article 5.