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.
You are correct. However, I didn’t want to drag up “outdated” historical evidence and decided to use the current state and federal constitutions, the two complement each other well enough to make the burden of proof on someone arguing against the right to keep and bear arms via both regulation and the idea that the common people are not the militia... or that the militia shouldn’t be as well-equipped as the US Army.
The Constitutions do a good job of speaking for themselves.As is evidenced by how little I actually had to say in order to build my counter-argument to this guy. :)