美国宪法第二修正案规定:保障一个邦的自由,必须有一支管理良好的民兵,不得干涉人民持有、携带武器的权利。本文从美国联邦最高法院于2008年和2010年对枪支管理法案的两个判决出发,在细致分析大法官的判词和先例的基础上指出,美国学界当代关于第二修正案的研究过于关注“枪支条款”、忽略了其“民兵条款”的面向。进而,我通过自殖民地始一直到1791年《权利法案》制定期间,建国者们关于民兵与常备军之间辩论的分析,论证出第二修正案的“民兵条款”面向。不同于美国学界就第二修正案两个条款间“序言与操作条款”的划分,我认为第二修正案两个条款是有一定联系但却相对独立的条款。在分别勾勒出第二修正案作为“枪支条款”和“民兵条款”两个面向后,我将进一步指出,为什么第二修正案无法终结美国当代的枪支辩论,其根本原因在于,在这个自由主义主导的社会中,第二修正案不啻为一块共和主义的活化石。 The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates: To guarantee the freedom of a state, there must be a well-managed militia and no interference in the rights of the people to hold or carry weapons. Based on the detailed analysis of the judgments and precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008 and 2010 on the basis of two judgments on the Gun Administration Bill, this article points out that contemporary studies of the Second Amendment in the academic circles in the United States have paid too much attention to “ Firearm terms ”, ignoring its“ militia terms ”orientation. Further, I analyzed the debate among the militarists on the militia and the standing army during the “Bill of Rights” since the colonies began in 1791, demonstrating the Second Amendment’s “militia clause” orientation. Different from the academic circle in the United States of America dividing the division between the two clauses of the Second Amendment and the Preamble and the Clauses of Operation, I think the two clauses of the Second Amendment are clauses that are related but relatively independent. After drawing the Second Amendment separately as the “two aspects” of the “arms terms” and “the militias provisions”, I will further point out why the Second Amendment can not end the contemporary U.S. gun debate. The fundamental reason is that, In this liberal-dominated society, the Second Amendment is not a living fossil of republicanism.