Then they would have changed the 2nd amendment upon institution of the "real standing army". That didn't happen. And it hasn't happened even though it's been revisited by the Supreme Court numerous times since WW2. And more states are expanding gun rights every year. Nearly 3/4 of states have strengthened gun rights since then. 7 states in the last 5 years alone. There is nothing to support these claims that the 2nd amendment is somehow being misinterpreted.
You make an intelligent argument. But here is where we differ I guess: A militia means, well, a militia. It does not mean everyone of every stripe gets to own a gun. That clause is in the Constitution for a reason. The only way the SC gets away with current interpretation is by ignoring those 4 words - a "well-regulated militia." You yourself quote the Federalist Papers - "and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.)" Assemble who? The well-regulated militia. Was that nut in Maine called up twice a year for training? No. Is anyone? No.
The nut in Maine was (I believe) an army reserve and was probably called up twice per year. I believe he was also a firearms instructor. The fact that he thought they should offer training once or twice per year to maximize the effectiveness of their own training doesn't change anything. I agree with him 100% and have said so many times. We should definitely be offering refundable tax credits for people to get gun safety training once or twice per year. *Edit* Just to add. The training would be incredibly important for getting an idea of the skill level and reliability of the the people if needed. For example, you'd want these people to understand muzzle discipline to reduce the risk of friendly fire in the ranks. It would almost certainly reduce the number of civilian firearm accidents as well as firearms theft. And I guarantee you, nobody wants to invade the US with 50-100 million gun owners and 400 million guns (even without our military)
And to more specifically address your point. The very clear meaning of "militia" by the people who wrote the Constitution was "civilians". The people. They specifically included "well regulated" to make it clear the general population of a free country should be highly capable as infantry as a check on any and all tyrannical threats, including government power (either foreign, or domestic). "Well regulated militia" at the time of the writing of the constitution meant "well armed and infantry capable citizen population". And they specifically did not want them having to live military lives or be a part of paramilitary groups we think of as "militia" today. And nothing has changed that would make a well armed and trained citizen population less of a check on tyranny today.
Only white people should have guns because only white people clearly show they know how to properly use them.
'Congress, Do Your Job': Gun Control Demands Grow After Dozens Shot in Florida, Illinois, and Indiana "How many more times do we have to wipe the blood off our streets before action is taken?" asked the Florida Democratic Party chair. https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-gun-laws
Maybe when Democrats focus on real solutions and stop wasting political capital on the fairy tail of "no guns"
Guns are just as fine with democrats as they are with republicans. America has been the top supplier of weapons across this planet for 28 out of the last 30 years. Proving that both parties are just fine with weapons.
