I've explained what it means in my other post. It's really  less subjective than many other concepts  in constitutional law.

This city used to be so open and in many ways was the epitome of freedom.  Particularly since September 11th, more and more avenues of movement through this town have either been blocked off or littered with a police presence that is intimidating and saddening.  If our gun ban is repealed, I think it will result in more closed and/or restricted areas - I think the repeal will become yet another excuse to allow people to put this town into a permanent state of quasi-marshall law.

Funny thing is that while we have a ban, we don't have any police going door to door to find people's weapons.  The people who get busted for gun possession in this city generally get caught doing some other crime; some kind of crime with that gun; or selling guns.  My father who was a criminal defense attorney here for many years thinks the law is draconian and would like to see it repealed.  I understand his point of view, but I don't have a problem with this law - then again as we move closer to the police state in this town, it might be nice to have one less law on the books for the government to use against citizens.

But nevermind what DC residents have to say on the issue.  As usual we are caught in the crossfire of politicos and ideologues who don't really care what the effects of their personal vendettas are. I was born here - raised in some tough areas of the city when I was young - our St. Bernards were better deterrents to crime than any gun would have ever been.

At the time, the dictionary defined "arms" as military equipment, and Congressional regulation of guns simply wasn't an issue.

What had people worried, Dellinger says, was Article I of the Constitution, which, as he observes, "gave the new distant national government" the authority to provide for the arming, maintaining and disarming of state militias.

"That's what was shocking and caused the movement for the Second Amendment," he says, adding, "The discussion by the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment, all of those discussions are about the militia."

When the Founders thought of the right to bear arms, they were thinking of small pistols and muskets;

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But the 1st Amendment, and the 3rd through 9th, enumerate and protect individual rights. In the middle of that, I read this:

Amendment II

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.

I would read that as saying you can't prohibit individuals from bearing arms, because to do so would prevent the states from organizing militias when necessary.  During the Revolution, much of the "Continental Army" was actually made up of militias organized by the respective colonies, with the militia men supplying their own arms. It reflects a completely different social and political structure than the one we have now.

But does it follow that, because the states now choose to arm militias with state-financed weaponry, that individuals no longer have the right to bear arms?  That individuals now longer have that right because they no longer need that right, because militias are organized and financed differently?  

And are there choices the government could make that would make other, indisputably individual rights obsolete?  For example, some people now urge a narrower reading of the Fourth Amendment because the "best" or "most effective" way to protect us from terrorists is to take advantage of technology that didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was adopted.  In the context of the Fourth Amendment, reading a right narrowly because of changes in technology is a bad thing.  Is it inconsistent to say that you should read the 2d Amendment narrowly due to changes in technology?

  As for the 2nd, it is not only possible but grammatically and textually more "reasonable" to view the first clause ans merely explanatory and not as limiting or modifying.

I've used this example before here:

"Well stocked libraries being necessary to a literate state, the right of the people to keep and read  books shall not be infringed." Would  that mean that states can ban the individual possession of books?

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
        ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
         ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
         ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
         ---Roger Sherman,14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

If we don't like something in the Constitution, the better response is to change it - not rationalize it away.

Prior to the time of the Constitution there was a history of kings purging their militias of members of groups they wanted to persecute, to make the persecution easier. The notion of a citizen soldier wasn't that people should own guns but that all people should be allowed to serve, that the military should not be made up of any specific group or that any group should be excluded. The right to "keep and bear arms" has more to do with the right to serve in the military than the right to own a gun. Unless, of course, the first half of the 2nd Amendment can be rationalized away.

Our politics has degenerated into contests in which issues take a back seat to lies, distortions and promises that cannot be delivered upon.  How many presidential candidates in 2007/2008 have made promises to take action far beyond the power of the office of President to enact?  While more discerning listeners realize that the candidate is making a promise to pursue particular policies, I'm afraid that many Americans today don't realize that Congress makes laws and the President can't unilaterally do many of the things the candidates promise.

Although it would be problematic to find a fair way to administer it (just look at the discussion here regarding what 'reasonable' means, or Bill Clinton's solipsistic journey into the meaning of "is"), perhaps it's time to consider not a literacy test but a test of understanding of the issues and mechanisms of our government.  This could not be a partisan 'political correctness' survey, nor could it delve into arcane details; it would be based on awareness of facts that we can all agree on (e.g., the US is spending more money every year than it receives in taxes,  Social programs account for more than 50% of annual federal government spending, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's none of the people's business if the Executive branch violates the Constitution). [sorry about that last one - it just slipped out even though it doesn't belong here :-)]