[andyfox]

The conclusion I'm drawing is that Jefferson's language was clearly intended to protect the private right to have weapons; the "keep and bear arms" language was clearly intended to refer to militia and other military activity. I'm not saying that had Jefferson's language been more moderate it too would have been rejected; perhaps there would have been an acceptance of an individual right to have weapons for personal usage. But the "keep and bear arms" language, as all the debate about it shows, was not intended to apply to personal weapon possession or usage.

As far as "For the common good" being in the original language of the proposed second amendment: Madison's initial formulation of the right to bear arms read:

"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."

Some in Congress wanted to add that the purpose of the militia was to provide for the common defense (not that people could have arms for the common good). For those who feared the new federal power, inclusion of this language would have seemed ominous. They feared it would provide a basis for unscrupulous leaders for prohibiting the miltia from defending the states or localities from external or internal threats. Virginia had two ardents states' rights senators and they would have viewed this as a dangerous concession to the federal government. Virginians were especially worried that federal control of the militia would threaten their state's ability to put down insurrections, since they had such a large slave population. That's why that phrasing was shot down.