“I think the point is that the Founders were making a claim that no government is legitimate if it can do otherwise than this amendment dictates.”
Which can be interpreted to mean that if people establish for themselves a government that does otherwise than this amendment dictates, said government is not legitimate in spite of what the people desire for themselves.
“Lack of a speedy trial is a denial of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are endowments of a Creator.”
The results of a trial, speedy or not, can be such a denial.
The holding of a trial can be a denial of the pursuit of happiness if the one to be tried doesn’t want a trial.
“With the exception of the Militia clause of the Second Amendment, the Founders were careful to avoid confusing the issues of “what are the constraints on government” and “what are the reasons for the constraints”.”
Sometimes we may need to delve into and understand the reasons for the constraints in order to understand the constraints and their extent.
“The Second Amendment seems weaker today because the Founders made a mistake in the Second Amendment by including a reason (one of many).”
The founders had a problem in that they were trying to incorporate a “kill switch” into a system of government they themselves were establishing after they had just won a long, bloody war against their own central government.
“If the Second Amendment simply stated, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, then there would be little doubt that all people and all arms are included.”
I disagree that there would be little doubt. One person might not be able to bear a three pounder cannon of the time, but maybe several men could have. So what is the meaning of bear, especially given the plural of “people”?
What is the meaning of arms? That’s easier perhaps since many believe it’s limited to what can be born. But is a firearm disguised as a cell phone (they exist), whose main purpose is assassination or murder, an arm in the sense meant?
But where does it say all arms? It just say “arms”, which some would argue is not all inclusive.
And above all, what is the “right”? Many already say it’s constrained, by another’s property rights, by youthful age, by mental illness, by intent perhaps. How can we talk about infringement without knowing all this? How can we talk about “what are the constraints on government”, other than ineffectually, without “what are the reasons for the constraints”?
“By including the Militia clause, the Founders opened us up to claims that since the National Guard is the Militia we no longer need arms.”
They fail to understand that the National Guard is only part of the militia, they are the organized militia. Many others are in the unorganized militia, although some of them have tried to organize on their own. And then there’s the Ohio Military Reserve, which is State sanctioned under law but separate from the National Guard.
“Or we suffer under the claim that only some weapons are protected because some may not be useful to a Militia.”
Yet some claim that some weapons should not be protected because they would be useful only to the military, a part of which is the militia. Oh well, consistency is the bugaboo of a small mind.
“Or that some arms threaten the security of a free State.”
They are correct, which is partly why we want and need and claim the right to such weapons to protect the security of a free State from those who threaten it.
The individual states inherited common law regarding many crimes from their colonial days and from England (or France).
Murder was a crime everywhere both before and after the ratification of the Constitution. (Slaves excepted ??)
The penalties for murder no doubt varied. The Bill of Rights established limits on abusive practices but in no way suggested that murderers were to be allowed to continue pursuing happiness after conviction.
"That’s easier perhaps since many believe it’s limited to what [arms] can be born."
Many may believe that but I can't imagine where they got such an idea.
Let's suppose that we have a constitutional right to "raise and eat carrots". Does that mean that we can only eat carrots that we raise? Does that mean that we can only raise carrots that we eat? I don't think so. We have a right to keep arms and we have a right to bear arms. By extension we have a right to buy arms, sell arms, manufacture arms, trade arms, train with arms, clean arms, and just about anything else that would make arms useful.
Also, where do people come up with the idea that "arms" are only things that can be born. Did none of you live through the SALT negotiations with the Soviets; you know, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty? "Arms" in this case being high-altitude long-range bombers carrying nuclear weapons.
You must be careful not to recycle nonsense from anti-gun liberals.
I think the distinction between "organized" and "unorganized" was legislated after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, perhaps long after.
From the Constitution respecting the power of Congress:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Even when in the service of the United States, the command structure of the militia was tied to the state from which it came. By implication, there would certainly be times when the militia was not in the service of the United States. At those times, the Congress would not be governing the militia.
Someone with more expertise should tell us whether National Guard officers are appointed by the state in which they are organized. I know of no amendment affecting this section of the Constitution. If National Guard officers are not appointed by their respective states, then the National Guard would not be the organized Militia described in the Constitution.