[andyfox]

The basic purpose of the Constitution was not to prevent government tyranny. In fact, the most beloved portions of the Constitution, I'm sure we all agree, appear in the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention made a conscious decision not to give the new federal charter a Bill of Rights. It was when the Constitution was sent out to the states for ratification that many Americans were aghast that the document enumerated the powers of government but not the rights of citizens. And they were aghast that as the ratification battle continued, the supporters of the Constitution continued to resist the idea of a Bill of Rights.

The supporters of the Constitution were afraid that the effort to amend it with a Bill of Rights in order to protect civil and states' rights would cancel the purpose of their effort--to strengthen the federal government. The most compelling motive for the framers of the Constitution was not to safeguard liberty from the tyranny of the federal government. As Alexander Hamilton said, he and many other Americans were growing "tired of an excess of democracy."

The discussion at hand is whether the 2nd amendment is referring to an individual right to keep and bear arms of the right to do so collectively for military purposes, whether one accepts your argument that the individual right is inherent and thus cannot be granted by the Constitution or not.

The framers did not venerate unrestrained liberty. What they sought was "well regulated" liberty. The individual states had lengthy militia statues; these constituted the largest body of law dealing with firearms. These regulations could be quite intrusive, allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but also requiring citizens to report to muster or face stiff penalties. The individual colonies used their police powers to regulate the nonmilitary use of firearms in a variety of ways. Regulations governing the storage of gunpowder were among the most common. States also prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. And the states retained the right to disarm groups deemed to be dangerous.

The states considered their authority over civilian gun use to be greater than that over "bearing arms." During his time as a legislator in Virginia, James Madison proposed a stiff penalty for individuals who hunted out of season. Madison proposed that a person who "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty" should be penalized. As Madison's language clearly shows, he understood the differences between bearing a gun for personal use and for the common defense; and he felt the state clearly retained the right to regulate the use of firearms and differentiated between the level of restrictions that might be placed on bearing a gun (i.e., for personal use) and bearing arms (i.e, for defense in a militia).

It is not ludicrous to think that "the founders intended for the common people to be deprived of their inherent right to freely bear arms." In fact, the right to travel armed was severely constrained under common law. The author of English Liberties, of the Free-born Subject's Inheritance, a popular English legal text reprinted in the colonies, defined an affray as a crime against the king's peace and that "constables may take away the Arms of them who ride or go armed in Terror of the People."