“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.” These might be the most awkwardly assembled twentyseven words in American political history. Much like reading James Joyce’s FINNEGANS WAKE or William Faulkner’s THE SOUND AND THE FURY, the Second Amendment takes repeated review to grasp even basic understanding.1 Though few teachers would accept such garbled prose from students, early Americas accepted this so-called sentence as part of our Bill of Rights -- the most important protections granted to states and individuals from federal government intrusion. Interpreting the meaning of these words has stirred fierce debate from which two primary positions evolved. The Individual Right Position holds that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess and use firearms (with some legislative oversight) for militia service as well as traditionally lawful reasons unrelated to militia service such as confrontation and self-defense. The Militia-Focused Position holds that the Second Amendment focuses on its opening clause and thereby prevents the federal government from disarming state militias in an attempt to wield power via a standing army. Under this position, individuals are allowed to possess and carry arms only in connection with militia service, which is subject to strong legislative limitations. This essay evaluates the text, history and judicial precedent surrounding the Second Amendment -- evidence generally accepted by both sides. The truth of which position best represents the amendment’s true purpose may well rest somewhere in the middle.