[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
You're putting way too much into this. Nobody was worried about individual rights to have guns for personal usage. That's why the Bill of Rights did not address this issue. They were worried about the increased power the newly consitutued federal government was going to have over the militia. That's what the amendment was about. That's why it talks about a well-regulated militia.

If one is an originalist, one cannot say that this amendment should confer individuals the right to own guns for personal usage. That's not what it says nor what was intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the supporting documents that other legislatures passed during the time period that clarifies the language? It's quite clear that the Anti-Federalists, who the 2nd amendment was designed to placate, where concerned about individual members of the militia's right to own guns. And since when does individualist mean "not-regulated"? If we acknowledge an individual originalist right to own guns, does it necessarily follow that those rights can't be amended according to societal rules? Because arguing that is frankly false on its face.