Haven't you stated that the militia is comprised of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45? If that's the case, then wouldn't that be at least a portion of the citizenry upon which the responsibility lay to be "well-regulated" in preparation for the mustering of the militia in the time of need? So in essence, they DID say that a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. It's basic logic (If A = B and B = C the A = C): If they stated that "a well armed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." then it could also be read as "a well armed group of able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Could it not?
I do concede to you that the States, not the federal government, have the right to make laws governing the responsible use of firearms, but according to the BoR, no governmental entity, Local, State or Federal, has the right to infringe upon the lawful bearing of those firearms, just as they don't have the right to create laws abridging free speech or illegally searching and seizing your private property.
Sadly, we have digressed to the point in this country where there is a level of political double-speak that is so confounding as to permit multiple interpretations of founding documents in such a way as to invalidate them completely. If they can start with the deconstruction and eventual destruction of the Second Amendment, the one that protects the rest, as it were, then the government can continue to dismantle those freedoms that are established not by the Bill of Rights, but considered as inherent in the lives of every man and inalienable by any person or government.
The idea that the Founders would look to the federal government to secure their defense, whether statewide or personal, is ludicrous. They trusted their state. They even identified themselves by their state (eg., as a "Virginian").
I agree with you that the Founders wouldn't look to the Federal government to secure their defense, but then you said "whether statewide or personal," which, from a grammatical standpoint, looks like you're stating that the government of individual States is part of the Federal government... are you making that contention? Please clarify, as that statement seems improper.
They did trust their State, which is why, as you've said many times, they placed "being necessary to the security of a free state," in the Amendment. However, each State is its own entity under our form of government, is it not? Do we not elect public officials to both the federal AND the state levels of government every 4 to 6 years?
My State of Florida allows me to protect myself, up to and including a firearm. And in my opinion, the federal government, because of the declaration of the Second Amendment, has no business making laws concerning firearms. As you've said, that is the business of the States. Hence our conversation and disposition heretofore.
Let’s elaborate on that.
“A well armed and capable and coordinated group of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all residents not criminal or insane, to obtain and own and carry weapons shall not be limited or taxed or restricted.”
No. A portion of the citizenry was to be formed into a well regulated Militia. I believe the Militia was about 20% of the population -- a relatively small group.
"then it could also be read as "a well armed group of able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Could it not? "
Close. "A well armed regulated group of able-bodied individuals white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 45, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
"but according to the BoR, no governmental entity, Local, State or Federal, has the right to infringe upon the lawful bearing of those firearms"
No. The Bill of Rights, as written, was a limitation only on the federal government. Here, read this: The Bar to Federal Action and Incorporation.
"but then you said "whether statewide or personal,"
The Founders would not look to the federal government to protect their right to defend their state. The Founders would not look to the federal government to protect their right to defend themselves.
""being necessary to the security of a free state,"
They're referring to "the security of a free nation".
"And in my opinion, the federal government, because of the declaration of the Second Amendment, has no business making laws concerning firearms."
An excellent point. "Shall not be infringed" seems to preclude that.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest.