Gun Control & RKBA

If the Militias were still made from a vast body of the people (vs select few); if the congress mandated that all eligible people (with minor exceptions) arm themselves at the least with similar military-grade arms/accoutrements & muster often enough to be well-regulated; if the States still wielded as much power and relied less on the central govt, I think there would be much less arguing about what was meant.

Do not underestimate the importance of the State Militias at this time, or the people's duty and right in composing them. The existing Militias were recognized and given vital roles to fill when in federal service in Article 1 and Article 4, so the Constitution had already secured the right of keeping arms to the people for Militia service. And Congress was to provide for how they, the Militias, would be armed and regulated. But important to note Congress was given NO such power over the people themselves.

Because of the Militias, because of the peoples' role in them, the 2nd amendment doubles down - the people have the right to arms explicitly secure in the 2nd because the people were supposed to compose well-regulated Militias, and Congress had been given powers to provide for how the Militias would be armed and regulated. (i.e. through non/malfeasance could they easily be DISarmed? (or otherwise rendered ineffective)).

I do not think the individual right of the people to arms depends on some "collective" role in the militias, but there seems little doubt that is why it was secured.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
[17 Aug.]

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia?...

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army"