Many liberal judges have tried to change the meaning of the amendment by assuming that the writers' interpretation of "well regulated Militia" was to mean the military. Their mis-interpretation of the first part was incorrect because "well regulated" during those times did not mean "subject to extensive government regulations." What it referred to was the property of something being in proper working order. Nor was the term "Militia" intended to represent the government's standing army. The Militia was made up of citizens: Farmer, bankers, carpenters, teachers, etc. So basically the Second Amendment was referring to the necessity that the armed citizens having the level of equipment and training necessary to be both an effective addition, or a formidable check upon the national government’s standing army if need be.
Your analysis seems nonsensical: If "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and "Militia" means "citizens," then does a "well regulated Militia" means citizens in good working order?
Furthermore, "armed citizens having the the level of
equipment and training necessary to be an
effective addition to the national government's standing
army" is the very definition of military regulation. (Besides, a standing army is the
last thing the Founders wanted the national government to have.)
Your criticism of liberal judges creating new interpretation of plain language is well founded, but your own interpretation does no better.
