[robertpaulsen]

"Surely the Founding Fathers didn't think soldiers needed legal protection to carry weapons!"

This is the first mention of soldiers. I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about members of a well regulated state militia.

Did you now want to change the topic?

Protection? The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of members of a well regulated state Militia to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.

You're now resorting to distorting the argument -- which is what you typically do. You're now talking about "soldiers" and "agents of the state" and "legal protection". I'm not going down that road. I think I've been very clear.

[publiusF27]

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of members of a well regulated state Militia to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.

Big government folks of the time like Hamilton had in mind maintaining a small group of people with military training, but even he also had in mind using members of those small groups as officers to command civilians if a large army were needed. Congress could arm those civilians once they were part of the militia (if they could afford it), but it was expected that the people would show up with whatever rifles they owned. This is why we're all supposed to have M-16s.

[ctdonath2]

I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about members of a well regulated state militia.

So far your explainations have resulted in a distinction without a difference. Both are agents of the state, selected by the state, using state equipment, carrying out state orders.