The truth is, the drafters pretty much lifted the 2nd amendment out of the state of Virginia's constitution, which preexisted the federal Constitution. From Virginia's Constitution:
Look a little familiar? There's even more context given here that shows the intent of keeping the state/military subordinate to the people.Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
If you take a look at Virginia's Constitution, you'll find that they took most of the bill of rights from it, as well as other clauses in the other articles of the constitution.
Good luck proving this. Maybe you can start by explaining away all the private gun ownership at the time of the drafting of the document... and also before, after, and ever since.But the second amendment doesn't actually do that, at least it wasn't intended by the Framers that way (it has expanded because of Judicial interpretivism in the Heller case). There is no right to gun ownership that is just floating out there in the aether as you would have us believe. The fact is that the meaning of the second amendment has been revised to create that right.
You're right here. It creates a restriction on the federal government.But, once again, on it's original meaning, the second amendment creates no such right.
again, why don't you actually provide some evidence that this is the case?It may exist in State Constitutions, and it may not, but the simple fact is that the original meaning of the second amendment was not to protect a right to individual gun ownership for hunting or sport. And no such right existed as against the federal government otherwise. You are quite simply mistaken in your understanding of how law works.