LOL!
"If I had a source that said the second amendment protected individuals as part of a well regulated Militia, there would be no Heller case, now would there? You're asking for something that doesn't exist."
Your argument is based on that which does not exist and is in opposion to the volumes written by those who wrote the 2nd Amendment. They wrote that it was the people's right, not any state's right and identified those people as the people referred to in the other 10 Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. The "living, breathing" Constitution belongs to you and exists in your mind and the likes of all others that are intent on denying the rights recognized and honored by those who created the country as a Free Republic.
The subject of the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people. The right is identified as the right to keep and bear arms. The command contained in that sentence is that the right of the people shall not be infringed and the command is to the govm't. The idea that is given to govm't and refers to one of their bodies of armed forces is ridiculous on it's face.
Yes. And in 1792, who exactly were "the people"? Everyone?
Once you figure that out, compare your answer to those who qualified to be in a Militia in 1792. They should match. If they don't, go back and start over.
The subject of the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people. The right is identified as the right to keep and bear arms. The command contained in that sentence is that the right of the people shall not be infringed and the command is to the govm't. The idea that is given to govm't and refers to one of their bodies of armed forces is ridiculous on it's face.
Precisely. The intent of the amendment as was originally proposed:
James Madison's Speech to House of Representatives Proposing Bill of Rights
"... Fourthly. That in article 2nd, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person..."
It's clear that:
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
2. a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Changing the order of 1 and 2 doesn't change their separate meanings. See: The Unabridged Second Amendment.