Let's cut through the BS. Do GUNS kill people, OR...

[Maxmars]

I like you too.

You might disagree, but I believe the Constitution "intent" had little to do with guns in the specific sense, and everything to do with codifying that citizens must always be capable of defending themselves... to have access to the means to provide that defense - and that the pursuit of that capability was not be imposed upon by externally applied rationale, so long as it was benign.

Well, I'm not sure about the "benign" part, but in fact I don't disagree with you at all here.  2a seems to recognize that "the security of Free States" is necessary for the Constitution to be more than paper, so I guess Lincoln would argue that not being "benign" would be malignantly destructive to the Union, invalidating the Constitution, and is thus implied.

Tech had nothing to do with it.  Only a time-locked fool would think that weapons weren't ever going to improve or become more formidable... The minutiae of specifics was left to those who are living in whatever time came after them.  

A bit of a diversion; I wonder if, say, Jefferson would consider groups such as "Anonymous" to be militias, in an online State, doing battle with meme-warfare?  I bet he would!  He'd prolly be all in to that.  We know that derpa and jsocks think of such things as weapons.

Not to be trite, but bioweapons... tanks... these are not for personal defense (except maybe for some exceedingly paranoid or stressed out individuals.)

And here's a great big hair to split: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".  So is it a personal right only?  Or should militias have capabilities of nation-state level of warfare?  Remember, the USA originally didn't have a standing army...

I don't care for the word "infringement" in these contexts... it implies victimhood.  It weakens the subject.  Maybe I just don't have the right words, but I find the whole topic of "rights" as opposed to "Constitutional rights" to be mishandled and mangled all too frequently.

No, that's wrong.  It doesn't imply "victimhood", in the call the whaambulance sense.  It refers to actions of the State that conflict with the People's rights.  The Constitution does not, as is commonly thought, "grant rights", rather it explicitly acknowledges some rights, and clearly defines where the State may infringe them.  Or not.

I think we Agree and you Know this, so I will stop now as I am Capitalizing many Nouns.

Just to tidy up my last post... by the word "benign" I only meant "not belligerent to the state." 

A well-regulated militia only has what it's individual members bring to it.  How an individual might procure tanks and weapons specifically designed for combat is up to them.  I grant you, the drafters most probably didn't envision a militia with dozens of cannons and/or siege weapons.  But then the intent may have been specifically about the people being capable of defending their collective selves, and not waging war.

I'm glad you got my meaning about the 'victimhood' thing... 

Acknowledged.