Replies

One of the definitions of militia is " a body of citizens organized for military service". I think the correct argument is that the founders thougt of all citizens as "the militia", even if they may rebel against the government from time to time. Remember that the founding fathers were commiting illegal acts against the British government. They thought the citizens should be armed just in case they had to commit drastic illegal acts against the new government to protect their freedom.

I agree. That's a good point.

Why would a bunch of people who had just liberated themselves via force of arms from the greatest military power of the time, then go delineate a "right" to the newly-created government which would have effectively prevented their own insurrection, had it been in place? It's obvious, they intended to insure the citizens were armed.

I've often lamented that the wording of the 2nd amendment is a little cumbersome, but then the "intelligencia" of today turn even plain English around to mean something sinister. I doubt it would have made any difference to those who would prefer to "crouch down lick the hand that feeds them" rather than assert their rights as free men.