[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "But if you're saying that the only victory you will accept is if the U.S. Supreme Court rules the second amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to self defense with any weapon you choose ... well, prepare to be disappointed."

Nonsense. There are still elements of the right that may have to be recognized, despite what I expect from Heller.

Why don't you entertain us with what the Founders would have to have written to accomplish what you describe as a possible victory?

We now know from your arguments that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", includes only people who were the militia and that "arms" includes only arms that the government decides are suitable for a militia".

How about this: "The right of all persons, except infants and prisoners or mental patients under custody, have a right to keep, bear, own, purchase, manufacture, sell, and trade arms of all kinds regardless of lethality or lack of specificity of target".

That's pretty airtight isn't it?

[robertpaulsen]

"The right of all persons, except infants and prisoners or mental patients under custody, have a right to keep, bear, own, purchase, manufacture, sell, and trade arms of all kinds regardless of lethality or lack of specificity of target".

That would make an excellent state law, which is where a law like that belongs.

The second amendment, however, was meant to protect something entirely different: the preservation of an entity necessary to the security of a free state -- the Militia.