The Second 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."

First, a "militia" has three seemingly relevant definitions:

a) "A military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, esp. to supplement a regular army in an emergency, freq. as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers"

b) "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology, esp. one that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army."

c) "The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed."

So the first question is: which definition of a militia best fits Amon Bundy's group and those like his?

It can't be a) since it is clearly not "to supplement a regular army in an emergency". 

It probably isn't c) either since i) there is no threat against which they are mounting a defence and ii)  standing armies have been developed.

So that leaves b), "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology". 

Next, consider the second clause: "being necessary to the security of a free State". It's hard to see exactly how such a "paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology" is necessary to the security of a free State. 

Arguably groups like this represent the opposite, a threat to a free state and the power of an elected government. They are simply anarchists, refusing to accept the rules collectively created for the functioning of a society.

So the question we must eventually confront is this; do we want an amendment in our constitution that protects the right of anarchists to get what they want at the barrel of a gun?