Reply #137: Here is my answer...sorry for the wait...

[frogfromthenorth2]

It's impossible to discover the intent behind the second Amendment without looking at the historical context surrounding its adoption. Nine States were necessary to ratify the Constitution. The control of the militia was a big point of discussion between Madisson and Masson. Militia was essential, for the South, to control, the slaves. The way the text was written at that point gave control to all militias to Congress. The South knew that the North wasn't "comfortable" with the idea of slavery. Loosing the control of the militia meant loosing control of the slaves.

Madison, who was first against the ratification of the Bill of Right but finally became one of the architect of the 2nd Amendment.

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was the inspiration for the US Bill of Rights. But they were mostly guided by the balance of power between the South and the North. One author, Carl T. Bogus, says that the main motivation wasn't "protection against tyranny" but the assurance that the South could keep control over the slaves. When you read the 2nd Amendment with that historical context in mind, it's obvious that the "subject matter" is the militia, not the right for individuals to bear arm.

It's interesting to note that this amendment is the only one who has a from of "preamble" to put the next affirmation in context. In a purely legal interpretation, such a preamble must be seen as a restriction to the scope of that Amendment. Clearly, it's the State right that is clearly protected. It address the concerns that the States had about the control of the militia. It's also important to know what "militia" meant at the end of the XVIIIe century in the colonies. They were organized and controlled by the States.