How do you interpret "A well regulated militia?" How does it (or does it)?

Question

affect the "Right to bare arms . . .?" How do you connect one to the other? Thanks.

Answer 1

At that time the meaning of "Regulated" was "Trained". Which is why trained troops are called "regulars"

IMPO the question is moot- simply because the main part of the sentence is that "no law shall be made restricting the right to own and bear arms".
The need to train is only one of the possible justifications for that right.
Please note that at that time the right to bear arms in Europe and Asia was limited to free men or noblemen. The US Constitution made sure that all US citizens were free men.

Answer 2

First off, an accurate quotation of the 2nd Amendment: "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."

Secondly, the word "regulated" meant exactly the same thing at the time of the drafting of the Amendment as it does today. Never in the history of the language has it ever been a synonym for "training."

As far as interpretation, none is required. The Amendment is perfectly clear as it stands. It provides for the possession of weapons (not limited to firearms, let alone specific firearms) by "the people" ( NOT a militia or the government) so that they may defend themselves against governmental oppression. The easiest way to prove this reality is to reverse the principle components of the text as in: "A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, this was not the intention of the Founders (who had an excellent command of the language) by any stretch of the imagination, or they would have written it this way.

.