"That’s the debate we should be having: On one side are people like the NRA, Ben Shapiro, and, whether he likes it or not, Alex Jones, arguing that the Second Amendment assures the right of the people to maintain an equality of arms with their government.
On the other side are people who believe that the Second Amendment’s provision that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is contingent on the requirement that it be in the context of a “well-regulated militia,” as the text actually provides. Those of us on in latter camp, who make up a substantial majority of Americans, will continue to insist that things like assault weapons and clips holding more than ten bullets have no place in the hands of anyone other than the military."
"So...does the Second Amendment provide for an armed insurrection against the US Government, or does it provide for the common defense of the US Government? Contrary to the right-wing gun nuts, the intent of the Founders was for the common defense of the new Republic -- and not it's overthrow."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211269#post3
Interesting question, so lets see what a founder actually said, and see if we can also ignore the strawmen some nuts tend to put forth:
"...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments,
but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Hamilton Federalist #29
So the original intent & notions of the 2nd amendment were to 1) deter the pretext for standing army 2) provide for the common defense 3) ensure an army would not be formidable to the liberties of the people, because a large body of the people would not be inferior in arms.
The problem lies today in the re-thinking by we the people with regards to the fear & need for large(HUGE) standing armies, vs. the usefulness and role of all the people as the militias. And the obvious inequality in power between the entities - in direct contrast with what was intended.
It COULD BE an interesting debate, couldn't it? Unfortunately there is little of that over there.
= new reply since forum marked as read