Regarding the Heller case you don't know what you're talking about. This is where historical context is of the utmost importance, and your anti-self-defense bias is clearly clouding your interpretation. Clayton Cramer, for example, showed that for the entire early American period firearms were present in many homes for defensive purposes. It was normal for homes to be armed against aggressors as well as for hunting purposes. To make the claim that arms holding was limited to militias is historically absurd.
The left-winger wants to take away the inherent right of self-defense from a citizen to who faces armed attackers. It's simply unconscionable.
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. First of all don't assume what my policy view points are. I assure you know less about them than you do about the origins of the Second Amendment. It is laughable that you suggest that because many men owned firearms before, during and after the ratification of the Bill of rights, it somehow shows that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own firearms for the various purposes, for which they were being used. You neglect two major facts in the shallow analysis:
1. The Bill of Rights, when ratified, were inapplicable to the several states. Ownership of guns among the citizenry existed, unaffected by the Amendments.
2. The state constitutions, which addressed owning guns and bearing arms (two distinct things), governed the rights of ownership. Some states included a right to gun ownership for hunting. Others did not, but that didn't mean it was outlawed.
