[s1artibartfast]

Thats about the worst example one can give, given that it has broadly been considered to allow [personal firearms] since the start of the country. The grammar isn't even confusing.

[edit] removed the word militia to avoid confusion between historic and modern definition.

[paulryanrogers]

Then why do they even mention militias at all?

[s1artibartfast]

At the time the rationale for a right was frequently included in the text, just as a modern reading of the right implies it is being used as an explanatory clause. The entire concept was that there would be no governmental army and in times of need, citizens would be able to use their arms and organize for mutual defense. In this context, "Militia" is synonymous with an decentralized armed citizenry without government oversight. The clause provides this rationale and coveys a sentiment against a standing army. here are what some state constitutions had to say about gun ownership, prior to the bill of rights.

Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:

>That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:

>The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:

>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I pulled the quotes from this link, which has more text and discussion.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...

[redserk]

Define “the people”. For works of it’s time, it is broadly used to mean both individuals and an elected government.

You’re utilizing one definition of a term that never had concrete meaning, so your reasoning is both imprecise and potentially erroneous.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it is pretty clear.

It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a document listing rights and protections for individual citizens. Furthermore, the statements already draw a distinction between the people and an army controlled by the government.

[redserk]

The document wasn’t for individuals. That’s quite the misunderstanding of basic history here.