The first element that supports the individual rights interpretation is the text of the amendment, itself: “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There is no reason, in my view, to believe that this text should be interpreted as anything but an individual right.
It appears that there was fundamental agreement between the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists that the Federal government “should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pg 320). James Madison (in Federalist No.46) noted that the American citizenry was ‘armed’, in contrast to “almost every other nation.” Far from disparaging this circumstance, he writes that it is “the advantage” enjoyed bu Americans. Also from the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, on page 320: “...everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arsm, any more than it shoud have the power to abridge the freedon of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” (These being individual rights, as well) This recognition lent support to the notion that the Second Amendment assured an individual’s right, despite the small body of case law subsequent to Miller, which was finally corrected in Emerson (United States v Emerson, 2001).
Certainly personal protection was promoted by virtue of being armed. That could be protection from other people, or from an intrusive government.
And I still find it offensive that this argument continues.
I agree. If the second amendment read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it's hard to read it any other way. Of course, that's not the way the second amendment reads, so that's a moot point.
"It appears that there was fundamental agreement between the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists that the Federal government “should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.”
This is a conclusion reached by the author of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Since I don't have a copy of that particular book, you have me at a disadvantage. I have no idea what the author is referring to, who said it, or in what context it was said.
"James Madison (in Federalist No.46) noted that the American citizenry was ‘armed’, in contrast to “almost every other nation.”
Correct. Madison was referring to the citizen state Militia which no other country had. He was not talking about individuals using arms to defend themselves personally.
"everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arsm, any more than it shoud have the power to abridge the freedon of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.”
Now I'm questioning your source. The Bill of Right was not written that way. Yes, the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion was protected for all persons. But the right to keep and bear arms was only protected for "the people", a select group consisting of the enfranchised body politic. Women and children, for example, were excluded.
"Certainly personal protection was promoted by virtue of being armed. That could be protection from other people, or from an intrusive government."
I agree. But that right was protected by state constitutions, not the second amendment.
"And I still find it offensive that this argument continues."
What I find offensive is the number of supposedly intelligent people who do not know what document protects their gun rights -- and who don't want to know.