…except as far as is necessary to declare it an irrelevant tangent, right? 
Only released upon the order of proper authorities sounds an awful lot like infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Through all these millions of discussions over the years, it’s pretty darn obvious self defense is a core reasoning behind the amendment. The discussion by the FFs, concurrent state constitutions and the history of the English laws all support it. The opposing side is purely playing pedantic with the final wording. I understand the wish for stronger gun laws but “That’s not what the 2nd amendment really says!” is just weak.
I dunno, it seems to me to be a lot more civil than debates over, say, Trump in Elections.
Such core reasoning that the FFs neglected to mention self defense anywhere in the constitution and bill of rights?
They didn’t mention to breathe either, but I’m guessing they thought that was important. 
Seriously, they didn’t mention self-defense as important because they figured everyone already got that.
So military personnel can exercise a right in the Bill of Rights that others cannot. Interesting recipe for liberal democracy.
The FF were actually more concerned about a standing army like the NG having weapons than regular folks.
That would be why the writers thought it necessary to specify explicitly that they were were referring to militia use.
It says what it says, not what you wish it said. I know it’s frustrating.
When is your next Guard drill?
Hey, if you’re allowed to ignore “shall not be infringed” then I think I’m allowed some leeway too.
Not ignoring it at all, just noting the limits within which the right is specified to exist, and outside of which the document is silent.
You don’t have leeway in misrepresenting views other than the one you want to hold.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting anything and it’s also not a view I hold. I think it’s rather ridiculous to have owning weapons as part of your foundational rights. I have just come to the conclusion that was the original intent, stupid as it seems now.
Just *who *do you think composes the military, what oath do they take, and under whose authority are they commanded?
Hint: *Not *some remote, alien tyrant occupier. How *that *view got to be commonplace never ceases to be baffling.
Correct. You can and should (according to the Constitution) regulate the militia, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Regulations on the militia that infringe on the rights of the people in general are not legit.
In answer to the question in the title of the OP, the militia can be subject to a civilian authority, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not subject to that authority.
The FF thought of a militia as a group who could be called up as necessary, and who would already be supplied with the necessary weapons. You don’t need to regulate the militia in that way - they could be called up and supplied with weapons by the calling authority - but regulating the militia by saying “we will supply the guns” cannot be accompanied by an associated demand that the people not be allowed to keep and bear their own arms. Because that right cannot be infringed.
Regards,
Shodan
By that reasoning, anyone with a gun can be called up to serve in the militia whenever necessary.
If they won’t go when called, then they are not part of a militia, much less a well regulated one.
If they have a right to guns, then the govt has a right to call them to duty.
The government DOES have a right to call them to duty. It’s called conscription. Of course they’ll be assigned weapons, so obviously the 2nd is a bit of an anachronism now.
So what? You don’t have to be part of a militia to have the right to keep and bear arms. That’s guaranteed to the people.
As CarnalK says, you may or may not have to serve when called, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can keep and bear arms. You always have that right - you are one of the people, whether you belong to a militia on active service or not.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary precondition of a well-regulated militia, therefore it cannot be infringed, even as part of regulating the militia.
Regards,
Shodan
It wasn’t always conscription, it was often times just calling up the militia.
This is true.
But the reason to keep and bear arms is so that you can be part of a militia.
And a well regulated militia is necessary for the free state, so that part of the amendment shouldn’t be ignored, even as part of expanding gun rights to include things like self defense.
“Can be” - not “only if you already are.”
No, it shouldn’t be ignored. But including self-defense isn’t an expansion of gun rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. You can use your gun for hunting, but not hunting does not mean your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. You can use your gun for self-defense, but owning it for any other reason does not affect your right to keep and bear arms.
You can have a gun for any reason, or for no reason. Because owning a gun for no reason is guaranteed. It is keeping and bearing the arms that is the right.
The FF thought this was a necessary condition for having a well-regulated militia. Maybe you don’t agree. Too bad - amend the Constitution if you can. Until then, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
Regards,
Shodan
And no mention that one of the biggest reasons we needed to have everyone armed and thought their might be an insufficient number of arms was because we were afraid of slave rebellion. THAT was what the militias were for - keeping the darkies in their place should they rise up and kill the white people - as had been experienced in the Caribbean. That is also made very clear in the historical documents.
(And militias were called up to quell slave rebellions on several occasions.
So how has it changed?
The FF also thought that a well regulated militia was necessary for a free state.
Well, and to fight off the native residents who may not take too kindly to having the land taken from them.