Reply #172: the purpose of the Second Amendment, at the time it was written,

[leftofthedial]

was to reassure American men, primarily rural American men, that the government would not prohibit them from banding together with their muskets to defend themselves from Indian attack. In years prior to the Revolution, the British, fearing the growing unrest in the colonies, had outlawed the militias that were necessary to protect farms and frontier settlements from Indian attack. In some cases, they also seized the militias' stores of weapons. Several waves of massacres ensued. The Second Amendment was conceived, in part, to assure the people that these militias would be allowed to exist.

Also, the framers did not envision a strong federal government and, in fact, did not believe there should be a standing federal army, certainly not a large one. Therefore, the defense of the nation would rest primarily on these militias.

THAT is why The Constitution guarantees that militia members would be allowed to keep and bear arms.

It does not specify that all people could own guns for whatever purpose they wish--hobbies, hunting or whatever. Your interpretation of the "well-regulated militia" clause is absurd and self-serving, as is your insistence on not interpreting the clear meaning of words like "organized" and "unorganized." It's as though you were to read "thou shalt not kill" and conclude that the word "not" does not limit the act of killing in any way.

Something has to change. We are a barbaric nation, where people murder one another at a rate not seen since the Mongols crossed Europe.

:shrug: