So lets read it and find out!

A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the Constitution was penned by the man who also penned the Virginia Constitution so what does the Virginia constitution have to say?

Section 13. M*****a; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated m*****a, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Does any of that sound familiar? In fact, if you read the constitutions of the majority of the original colonies you will find similar wording regarding m*****a and free-standing armies.

So where's the wording about liberal despots or any despot whatsoever? If the intent is so you cons can o*******w governments hostile to you and that you can defend yourself with the latest gun why wouldn't either be mentioned in the second amendment? If the intent was different than what Madison meant when he wrote the Virginia Constitution why would the two sound so much alike?

And during the Whiskey R*******n, when Washington called up the well-trained m*****a from 4 states, was he following that actual intent of the Second Amendment and not the perverted meaning that you cons have come up with today?