[stymaar]

> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).

Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…

[strideashort]

A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.

A militia could be.

To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.

The mechanics is really pretty simple.

And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.

That is the constitution.

I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.