[fr_freak]

The one thing that is clear in the intent of the framers is that they felt that law-abiding citizens could arm themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

1) The wording of the 2nd amendment suggests that the militia should be well-regulated. It says nothing about the right to bear arms being well-regulated. In fact, it specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

2) This amendment was written during a time when the term "arms" included all arms available to armies at war. For example, muskets were the pinnacle of firearms technology, and were used by both soldiers and hunters, whereas now we have distinctions between different types of firearms (assault rifles, shotguns, automatic weapons, etc.) It is my firm belief that the Framers' intention was that these "militias" should have access to the same weaponry as any soldiers might have, especially considering that the militias were expected to act as soldiers in time of need. Furthermore, given the level of paranoia that the Framers exhibited regarding oppressive governments, I have no doubt that much, if not most, of the intention of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee citizens a final recourse against their own government, should it become unwieldly (as ours has).

[El Gato]

For example, muskets were the pinnacle of firearms technology, and were used by both soldiers and hunters,

Actually rifles were not unknown, and were used by some units on both sides of the Revolution. They were not though suitable for the common solider, because until the invention of the Minie ball, they were very slow to reload. The ball, which fit tightly against the lands of the rifling, and down into the grooves a bit as well, had to literally be pounded down into the barrel.