One of your quotes clearly supports that contention: "would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." In 1788, there were over three million people in the United States, yet Madison, in Federalist #46, envisioned that only 17% be armed!
There were other quotes that appeared to refer to individuals but were not. Patrick Henry's, "that every man be armed" was pulled out of context -- they were discussing who should arm the state Militia.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Founders wanted the states to maintain and protect an armed citizenry to "execute the Laws of the Union, Suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Furthermore, the Founders did not want the federal government interfering with this armed citizenry. But the armed citizenry was the Militia.
There was nothing stopping any citizen from owning a weapon. In some cases, state constitutions even protected that individual right and some specified "for personal defense".
But that's a whole different issue. We're discussing what, specifically, the second amendment protects. And I say it offered limited protection. That's the way I read it, anyways, and I fear that may be the way the U.S. Supreme Court would read it.
(Thank you for taking the time to put together a quite impressive list of cites, references and quotes.)
Let's start with the Henry quote.
Here's the rest of what he said, that puts it in context:
But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?
I've found a source at Findlaw that takes the tact of calling this quote "out of context". It's an Amici Curiae filed in response to District of Columbia vs Parker by none other than the Center for Handgun Control - why, that's Sarah Brady's outfit! What a startling coincidence!
Obviously, the court disagreed with that, among other things the lawyers for this whacko outfit contended.
The left likes to say that the case law is "settled", perhaps in the sense that Dred Scott settled case law.
No, the worm is turning, methinks, and it is well nigh high time the Supreme Court addressed this issue head on.
Moving on, I see you're playing with numbers here. The reason they're invoking the "half a million" figure is because that's all the people that had guns available at the time! Even in the subsequent quote above by Patrick Henry, he admits total armament by the populace is "still far from being the case"!
There weren't many women who had guns (although I'm sure a fair number of them could handle them quite well), and there weren't many kids armed to the teeth, unlike today's inner city kids.
No, the argument was, should worse come to worst, everyone who had a gun could, or maybe even would, be there. In today's clime, it's estimated that some 80 million gun owners possessing 270 million firearms. Were our Founders around today to write or speak this, that (80 million) is undoubtedly the figure they'd use.
Yes, the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, and indeed, the Constitution itself, is an anti-Federal document, in that it sets out the limits that the Federal Government was supposed to observe with regard to "the People".
What I want to know is, why are so many Federales agitating so anxiously against what you agree is a States Rights area? I've seen them invoking the Commerce clause, the Supremacy clause, and maybe even the Santa Clause, to crush this seemingly completely.
The question is, why? What is their reason for doing so. Are they just looking out for the safety and comfort and the Citizenry? Or, is there an ulterior motive at work?
If they were so concerned about our welfare and scrupulously observing the Constitution, why, then, haven't they addressed the Border problem?
Although you may think I'm going off on a tangent here, the two are not unrelated.
It comes down to, once again, the inalienable fact that the Citizenry has a right to protect itself, be it from foreign invaders or domestic usurpers who flash their own brand of tyranny, and that if those who govern us cannot trust us with the guns, then we cannot trust them with the political power to "lead" us.
It is that simple.
CA....