The point of the second amendment is very clear if you read it. In 1791, in the absence of a military, there was a necessity for A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, - and thus - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us
well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all
well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a
well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every
well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her
well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every
well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Of course, the fact that American conservatives usually support the Second Amendment
and a standing army is quite ironic.
Excellent! In 1791, we needed a
properly working militia, obviously.
Now, please, sir, demonstrate to us how the proliferation of 300 million guns among the populace via a gun supporter's interpretation of The Second Amendment translates to a
properly working militia. Switzerland, the U.S. is not. And let it be noted, that in Switzerland, the militia is
well regulated by 21st century standards, meaning, regulated, and regulated tightly, by the government.
