Whatever any of the other Framers might have thought about it, here’s what Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania’s delegate to the Continental Congress, believed on the subject of keeping and bearing arms:
Here’s how Alexander Hamilton– hardly a libertarian like that proto-Commie Jefferson– defined the terms “militia” and “a well-regulated militia” in his essay “Concerning The Militia”, now counted as the Federalist Paper #29. Incidentally, written in the course of rebutting claims that giving the federal government co-authority with the state governments to summon the militia would or needed to put every man with a gun under government authority:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
So at least to me it appears that first, Hamilton takes “militia” as a plural noun and not referring to a singular institution or organization; he says “all the militia”, not “all the militias”. Second, that he regards the militia as being “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens”. And third, that he defines “well-regulated” as “A tolerable expertness in military movements” and “the degree of perfection”. Indeed throughout the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers, whenever they use the term “disciplined”, they appear to be talking about what we would now use the term “regulated” for.
Because in common-law precedents going back as far as King Henry II’s Assize of Arms in 1181 A.D., the militia were defined as the people of the land answering a summons to the common defense armed with their own privately-held weapons. Even as recently as the two Militia Acts of the 1790s privately owning the necessary weapons was required by law.
(sigh) Ah yes, the “technological obsolescence” argument against the Second. When you finish printing your reply on your single-sheet wooden screw press, please send me a copy.
I’m just being an originalist here.
And finally (for now), some more on the phrase “well-regulated”:
The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.eduThe following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Not when the text says nothing about only smooth-bore muskets being arms.
AKA The Unorganized Militia
de Toqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1
The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can be read by every one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrable to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The indispensable want of legal assistance which is felt in England and in the United States, and the high opinion which is generally entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult science. …
In America there are no nobles or men of letters, and the people is apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class, and the most cultivated circle of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not composed of the rich, who are united together by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
As the conservatives on the Supreme Court are happy to remind us, we’re only allowed to interpret the Constitution based on what its authors were contemplating at the time, which is why the Insurrection Clause doesn’t apply to Donald Trump and the 4th amendment no longer contains a right to medical privacy. I’ll allow a liberal reading of anything that could be considered “arms” in 1791 and open it up to wheellock pistols, sabres, ship-mounted cannons loaded with grapeshot, and as many varieties of polearm as you can shake a stick at.
It was discussed there, and then the debate followed into Congress during the ratification process. The Anti-federalists insisted on an actual Bill of Rights- some of the framers of the Constitution thought those rights were self- explanatory, and did not need listing out. Clearly they were wrong.
Correct, the Founders would have been horrified by the idea that the National Guard- under final control of the Executive branch- would be considered a “militia”- To them it would be just another standing army.
Obviously then you have no rights on the internet then? Or on a Telephone? or in emails? 
Now- all rights have limits- you maybe worship Baal, but you cannot sacrifice live human babies. Free press? Kiddy porn, copyright, trademark, slander, libel, etc. And guns too- no machineguns, limits on carrying concealed, no howitzers, and so forth.
So altho the Right to keep and bear arms is an individual right- it needs limits
I am of course being somewhat facetious as a way of pointing out that the crowd thay believe the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 14th, and most other amendments must be interpreted as narrowly as possible, whereas the 2nd amendment is to them unambiguously broad and all-encompassing. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, but you can carry a silenced AR-15 with a bump stock, a night vision scope, and an extended magazine fully loaded with armor-piercing rounds into one, according to them.
I concur- all the rights must have limits. The 2nd maybe more than others.
I would say that in fact the other amendments have been held to uphold broad general principles, far more broadly than the Second Amendment, which has long been regarded as the redheaded stepchild of the Bill of Rights.
But in the first example someone actually has done harm, whereas in the second they merely have the potential to do harm. What most people base their objection to the second on is that supposedly no law-abiding person would need or want to be so armed in a public place; and especially that a presumption may be read into their being so armed. But our system of law and justice doesn’t usually permit the government to take action against what people might do; “prior restraint” such as gag orders against publishers or court-ordered injunctions are seen as drastic infringements on freedom, only justified in extraordinary circumstances. The rest of the time, in the words of one court decision:
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot un-armed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” Arkansas Supreme Court Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 1878
Actually, defining the 2nd Amendment was a bit of a “third rail” for most of the existence of SCOTUS, and it wasn’t until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that Scalia squeezed through a 5-4 decision making the 2nd Amendment a personal right. It was the very first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.
Until then, there was no reason to. However, three cities (if you count Wash DC as a city) all basically outlawed handguns or even more.
So, there were no widespread gun bans up to that point, so no one brought a case that far.
Well, that took all of 4 seconds to dispute with a simple link to The Gun Zone (gotta be a far left wing site ) Was there gun control in the Old West? | [September Updated] (thegunzone.com) taliking about gun restrictions in the Old West.
BTW you can read about District of Columbia v. Heller here District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
Clearly a 2nd Amendment violation. “Machine guns” are militia weapons. Nuclear warheads are not as they are not commonly issued to or used by foot soldiers.
Are you aware that most rifle bullets will pierce soft body armor, including Level 3A including commonly used hunting rounds?
No I’m not, and I hope you’re not going to try and gatekeep “being afraid of people with guns” because I can’t explain the precise physics of how supersonic lead will tear through my flesh and rend my soul from my body.
The 2nd amendment was the third biggest mistake the authors of the Constitution made.
After slavery, and…?
The Electoral College and disproportionately larger representation for rural states in general. A couple hundred thousand people in Nebraska getting the same amount of Senate representation as tens of millions of Californians is a big part of why American politics is broken today.