can't help but play devils advocate and point out that the 2A does mention a well regulated militia. I've never been a fan of the wording of the 2A, its vague, could be seen as contradictory, and feels like it's two independent thoughts joined together for some reason. But it leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and the way it's interpreted at this point is to allow for some state regulation.
The quote you're looking for is Ben Franklin.
"Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither and lose both."
If you want to break up 2a like that, look it this way.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state,"
What does that mean? The military? I believe most would agree. What else would you consider a well regulated militia? Some believe it to be the citizen iarmy. Other would say the armed forces. Who knows. BUT!!!!!! One of the things you are missing is this: ,
"....necessary to a free state(COMMA), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A comma is used to connect two independent clauses. It generally means "and" "or" "but". So using either one of those, I will show 2a again.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, OR the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
By basic definition of its contents, 2a tells the .gov that our rights are not to be regulated. And the last words tell it all. "Shall not be infringed." I believe it to mean that 2a supports a regulated army, and supports the peoples right to bear arms.
Nothing in 2a allows state regulation. Period.