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.
鉴于一支管理良好的民兵对一个自由州的安全实属必要，人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯。
事实上并非如此。自其问世以来，在如何解读第二修正案上一直存在诸多重大分歧，直到联邦最高法院2008年District of Columbia v. Heller与2010年McDonald v. Chicago这两个里程碑判决之后，司法层面的分歧才告一段落。然而这两个判决本身就是极富争议性的，判决的支持者自然欢欣鼓舞，反对者则指责多数派大法官们出于个人政治立场而扭曲宪法原意，在高院史上新添了两桩错案。
那么对这条修正案的解读究竟存在哪些分歧？
首先，与其它修正案相比，第二修正案的语法结构别具一格，所述「一支管理良好的民兵对一个自由州的安全实属必要」与「人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯」两个命题不是并列关系，而是引导从句（prefatory clause）与操作从句（operative clause）的关系，前者作为原因状语修饰后者（即「鉴于……」）。引导从句通过谓词的动名词化来表示原因，在制宪时代是常见的文法，相当于说「As /Since /Given that /Considering that /… a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, …」——这一点争论各方均有共识。
围绕这些分歧，宪法学界形成了两大基本的解读流派：「个体权利派」（individual right interpretation）与「集体权利派」（collective right interpretation）。
2008年的Heller案是「个体权利派」的重大胜利，如高院的5：4判决所言：
第二修正案保护这样一种个体权利：拥有一款与在民兵中服役没有关联的火器，以及将该武器用于传统上合法的目的，比如在家中自卫。
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
… did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome... by raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law; by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law…
……通过未经议会同意便于和平时期在国内招募并维持一支常备军，并违法驻扎士兵；通过在天主教徒既拥有武装又被违法募兵之时，一面解除诸多新教徒良民的武装……企图颠覆并根除新教，以及本国的法律与自由……
相应地，《权利法案》规定：
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law; That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
非经议会同意，于和平时期在国内招募或维持一支常备军，属于违法；新教徒臣民可以出于他们的防卫起见，视他们的诸般条件所适，在法律允许下拥有武器。
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; 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.
一支管理良好的、由经受武器训练的人民全体组成的民兵，是一个自由州的恰当、自然且安全的防卫；常备军在和平时期对自由是危险的，应予避免；在任何情况下，军队都应该严格屈从于文官权力，并接受其管理。
宾夕法尼亚（1776）、北卡罗来纳（1776）、佛蒙特（1777）、马萨诸塞（1780）等州的宪法在「避免常备军」和「以文驭武」方面与弗吉尼亚做出了几乎相同的规定——除了马萨诸塞州在常备军问题上更明确地采用了英国权利法案的「议会权模式」，规定的是「未经立法机构同意（without the consent of the legislature）」不得在和平时期维持常备军。
The Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;…
国会有权……着手征调民兵以执行联邦法律、镇压叛乱和击退侵略；
着手组织、武装与训练民兵，以及着手管理可被征用为合众国服役的那部分民兵，而各州则相应地保留对军官的任命权、以及按照国会规定的条例训练民兵的权力；……
SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
EIGHTEENTH, That no Soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct.
NINETEENTH, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
第十七条：人民有权存贮与佩用武器；一支管理良好的、由经受武器训练的人民全体组成的民兵，是一个自由州的恰当、自然且安全的防卫。常备军在和平时期对自由是危险的，因此应在共同体的环境与保障所允许的范围内尽可能地予以避免；在任何情况下，军队都应该严格屈从于文官权力，并接受其管理。
第十八条：任何士兵在和平时期未经屋主允许不得驻扎民宅，在战争时期亦只能以法律允许的方式驻扎民宅。
第十九条：任何对佩用武器有宗教顾虑之人，在偿付足以招募另一人代其佩用武器的金额之后，应当得到豁免。
稍早几天的新罕布什尔动议也包括了与弗吉尼亚动议相似的「常备军条款」和「驻扎民宅条款」，但在「武器权条款」上，措辞并非「人民有权存贮与佩用武器」，而是「国会永远不得解除任何公民的武装，除非其正在参与或曾经参与实际发生的叛乱（Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion）」。纽约动议相比于弗吉尼亚动议，在「民兵条款」中将民兵「由经受武器训练的人民全体组成」，改成了「包括有能力佩用武器的人民全体在内（including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms）」。北卡罗来纳动议则全盘照抄弗吉尼亚。
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; …
The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, … without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.
人民有权为了他们的自卫、他们所属州的防卫、合众国的防卫、或出于杀死猎物的目的，而佩用武器；不得通过任何法律解除人民或其中任何人的武装，除非当其犯下罪行、或当个体造成了公共伤害的切实危险；……
各州居民拥有在合适季节于他们所拥有的土地或合众国其它所有未圈之地上打猎的自由，……而不受合众国立法机构所通过的任何法律的限制。
前面提到，作为州宪法的组成部分，1776年《弗吉尼亚权利宣言》有着与1788年动议相当的「民兵条款」、「常备军条款」与「以文驭武条款」，却偏偏缺少「武器权条款」。不但如此，此后近两百年间弗吉尼亚州五次修宪（1830、1851、1864、1870、1902年），都没有对这一部分做任何更改。直到1971年第六次修订州宪，才在「一支管理良好的、由经受武器训练的人民全体组成的民兵，是一个自由州的恰当、自然且安全的防卫」后面，补了一句「因此，人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯（therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed）」。
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯，因为一只装备良好且管理良好的民兵是一个自由国家的最佳安全保障；但任何对佩用武器有宗教顾虑之人，不得被强迫由本人服兵役。
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
鉴于一支管理良好的、由人民全体组成的民兵是一个自由州的最佳安全保障，人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯；但任何有宗教顾虑之人，不得被强迫佩用武器。
委员会将报告提交众议院全院讨论后，8月24日表决通过的众议院决议是：
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
鉴于一支管理良好的、由人民全体组成的民兵是一个自由州的最佳安全保障，人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯；但任何对佩用武器有宗教顾虑之人，不得被强迫由本人服兵役。
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.
鉴于一支管理良好的民兵对一个自由州的安全实属必要，人民存贮与佩用武器的权利不得受到侵犯。
在参众两院先后讨论这条修正案的过程中，有几个问题一直是争议的焦点。
一是是否重新引入被麦迪逊省略的「常备军条款」与「以文驭武条款」。
二是是否强调民兵「由人民全体组成」，或强调人民应当「经受武器训练（trained to arms）」。
三是民兵与自由州的安全之间究竟属于何种关系：前者究竟本身就是后者的「安全保障（being the security of）」，抑或其「最佳安全保障（being the best security of）」，抑或「对其安全实属必要（being necessary to the security of）」，抑或是其「恰当、自然且安全的防卫（the proper, natural and safe defence）」？
前面提到，1776年的宾夕法尼亚州宪法规定，「人民有权为了他们的自卫和本州的防卫而佩用武器（That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state）」。在联邦宪法修正案定稿并提交各州后，1790年宾夕法尼亚州一边批准了修正案，一边修订了本州宪法，将上述条文改为：
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
公民们为了他们的自卫和本州的防卫而佩用武器的权利不得受到质疑。