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.
Not covering every detail due to personal time considerations is not neglect. That's one of the many false statements and assumptions that you regularly post here. As you can see, I've been a member here since 2006 yet I have only recently broken the 200 post barrier, unlike you who has thousands of posts. I have no desire to invest as much time into posting here as you do because of other things I am involved in. It is not a priority for me. So don't make assumptions about what I know by what I post, and I won't make assumptions about the extent of your arrogance. I assure you I know far more than what I write on this site.
As for the two points you made, those facts are not news to me. But ignoring historical context as you have done is not laughable, it is sad. Notice too, that I have limited my argument to firearm use for self-defense. The language of the Second Amendment is clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is separate from the preceding clause which depended on it, and the majority view was that the militia was the "body of the citizenry." The general idea was not that the newly formed United States was going to become a tyranny, but that the people would theoretically fight off a foreign attacker, and that it was better without a standing army. Even with a standing army, it was irrelevant to the accepted belief that there was an inherent right to defend oneself (and family and country). It was seen as a natural right.
My not going into the details of the different ratification committees, the reformational and enlightenment influences on the thoughts of the various Constitutional authors, etc., should be used to create the false assumption that I am unfamiliar with them.
