[OneWingedShark]

I just had to refute the comment, it was bugging me.

[OneWingedShark]

You might like my reply here. (I wanted to post my response online in case the Editors decided against running my rebuttal.)

Thanks.

[greyfoxx39]

NM Ping

[RonF]

There's a connection to the militia, all right. But I dispute what you think the connection is - although the position I hold may actually better support, rather than contest, your main point.

Based on then-recent history, the Founders feared a strong central government with a standing army. Yet the new Federal government clearly had the power to assemble and maintain one. How, then, to ensure that the Federal government could not abuse that power to dominate the States? Read Federalist Paper 29. The concept was that the several States needed and would have and control well-trained militias that would secure the States abiility to resist any plots by the Federal government to impose any improper control over them. Or, to put it more succinctly:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...

However, the Founders also recognized that in a way this merely kicked the can down the road. Now the State was able to defend itself against the Federal government. But how, then, would the populace be able to defend itself against the militia? Why, simple:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.