[inquest]

Care to support your contention (with a cite) that the original intent of the 2nd amendment "was for the federal government not to have a monopoly on the ability to use force internally"?

Come on. The whole issue surrounding the second amendment was a grave fear of standing armies, which represented the ability of government to use force without restraint. If you want a "cite", a whole treasure trove can be found here (though some are more recent quotes, the vast majority are from the ratification period). One of my own favorites is from Patrick Henry:

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Now I'm sure your next move will be to start playing word games on the meaning of "if". Knock yourself out.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, if you're claiming that the original intent of the second amendment was "arms for our own defence" then so be it. My question to you continues to be, is original intent the same as sole intent?

In other words, is the sole intent of the second amendment "arms for our own defence" or can arms be used for other purposes? If arms can be used for other purposes (eg., hunting), then please tell me the significance of "original intent" (other than historical curiosity).

Why are you refusing to answer this question?