Antipitas and Tennessee Gentlemen,
If the militia is a completely dead issue, how would you characterize the capacity in which the hypothetical citizens mentioned in the Nordyke opinion are serving, when defending the country against foreign invaders, as described by the court?
Isn't the preservation of the ability to raise a militia, inherent in the amendment? And if not, what about all that talk by the court of resisting a tyrannical government? Or are you suggesting that the national guard would do that on our behalf?
I can't speak for Antipitas and Tennessee Gentleman (though I am interested to see their replies).
It would appear to me that while the preferatory clause is not meaningless (I believe that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is still a valid one), neither is it a condition on which guarantee of Second Amendment rights hinges. Therefore, I would say that while the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the militia to be armed, it also guarantees the rights of all the people to be armed.