Nonsense. All we would hear about from the anti-gunners would be "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and that our Founders never meant for the people to have arms to challenge the authority of government. But our Founders had just successfully challenged the authority of government and had decided to reduce that authority, such that the government no longer would have the authority to disarm the people.
It is not the "security of the state" which is the purpose of a well-regulated Militia, but "the security of a free State". The latter requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed, including that of 85-year-old women.
It is not the "security of the state" which is the purpose of a well-regulated Militia, but "the security of a free State". The latter requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed, including that of 85-year-old women.
Precisely.
"We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known,--
I. That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity,--among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety...
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs..."
In number XVII quoted above, notice that the first item declared and made known is: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Seems to me that your analysis is spot on.
Additional references:
TO KEEP AND BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS: THE ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 1787-1791
The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?
All of our other rights are reasonably regulated. I see no reason why the second amendment would be an exception.
If the anti-gunners object to the individual right to keep and bear rocket launchers, perhaps legislation could be written to accomodate that. For example, "all personal rocket launchers are to be kept in the Militia armory".
"The latter requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed, including that of 85-year-old women."
The Founding Fathers did not expect 85-year-old women to need that right protected since 85-year-old women were not expected to defend the country. If the state wishes to protect her right, they certainly may.