Thank you all so much. I knew I could count on Freepers....Lots of good suggestions and material here. Keep it coming...
If the 2nd Amendment was only referring to a militia that was under government control, then the Amendment makes absolutely no sense - it is completely superfluous.
Why (I guess it’s obvious now) - of course any militia under government control would have arms ! I think the kids say “duh” in this case. A government-controlled militia, by definition, would have to bear arms. It would would not require an Amendment to the Constitution to make clear that a government-controlled militia should actually arm itself.
In the case of the citizenry having the right to bear arms, that presents a possible question - does everyone keep themselves armed all the time, or do they wait until they are called up, and only then can they bear arms ? It makes sense, in answering that question, to have the 2nd Amendment. It makes it clear in referring to the right of the “people” to keep and bear arms - as opposed to being a right of the “militia” mentioned first.
It’s amazing to me how so many supposedly intelligent people can twist and contort such a simple sentence to suit their own purposes.