Hmmm, if you say that "the militia clause only really serves to justify the right to bear arms", wouldn't you be worried the anti gun people would counter with...
At that time a militia was the police force and an extension to the army. We now have the police and army to do all our protectin against, local, national or foreign threats. Therefore, there goes your reason for civilians to bear arms.
Or a future gov could decree that there shall be no militias, and therefore your right to bear arms?
I've heard these kind of things from the left online before you see
Militia:
“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” This was written by George Mason.
The English used militias in this sense before 1066. This type of militia was referred to as the “fyrd”. Colonial militias required that every able bodied male over 17 was required to be a member of the local militia. The militia would be commanded by a few officers that were usually local citizens that were appointed by the local government leaders or militia.
To understand the 2nd amendment one needs to look at the intent/purpose of the amendment when it was added to the constitution and the debate surrounding it when it was written and adopted. It was debated in the Ratification Debates.
There was debate on how much power that army should have compared to the citizens. The army would be to prevent insurrection and protect the country. England and other European countries had tried to disarm their citizens in order to further tyranny. America was the one of a few countries that had no such restrictions. The solution to this was to allow the citizens to “keep and bear arms”.
From Cornell (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER):
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
James Madison and James Mason were anti-federalists that wrote on the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Declaration of Independence talks about the power of the citizens against tyranny:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
From Cornell (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER):
“keep and bear arms”:
Keep is the right to own arms.
Bear is the right to carry arms.
Good paper on the 2nd amendment.
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
