That is a fascinating quote which I don't think I've seen before. Although I appreciate the desire, on the part of the authors of the Bill of Rights, to boil each amendment down to its essence, in this case I wish they had kept more of the original context. The vision presented in this statement -- of "a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms" -- is very different from what we've wound up with. There's nothing resembling a trained militia organized by the states, nor do most gun owners seem to feel any duty to engage in such organized training if it existed (of course, many do engage in individual training, but not all). The exceptions are private right-wing militias whose presence probably doesn't contribute to the overall security of the community, and, of course, organized crime, which is destructive to that security. And then on the other hand, we do have a standing army, indeed an entire military-industrial complex, which is evidently necessary, at least to some extent, in this modern world with its machines of war that were unimaginable to the Framers. The one part of this article that has worked out more-or-less as Mason envisioned is the last clause: the military has indeed remained under civilian control.
To me, all this adds to the difficulty faced by those who want to disregard the opening clause of the Second Amendment ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."). It's all about collective self-defense; there's nothing here about individual self-defense. While I agree that individuals have a right to defend themselves when necessary, I believe that defending citizens from one another is primarily the responsibility of the State; only when the State is clearly failing in this duty do citizens have the right to take that defense upon themselves. Allowing individuals to arm themselves in the absence of such necessity — for sporting purposes, for example — is a choice a community might make, but is not a right.
To me, all this adds to the difficulty faced by those who want to disregard the opening clause of the Second Amendment ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."). It's all about collective self-defense; there's nothing here about individual self-defense. While I agree that individuals have a right to defend themselves when necessary, I believe that defending citizens from one another is primarily the responsibility of the State; only when the State is clearly failing in this duty do citizens have the right to take that defense upon themselves. Allowing individuals to arm themselves in the absence of such necessity — for sporting purposes, for example — is a choice a community might make, but is not a right.