[donquixote99]

Some of the framers were of a revolutionary spirit that wanted 'the people' to be able to win a fight with 'the government.' Some thought such notions heedless of the need for order and the dangers of insurrection. The Second Amendment represents language unclear enough that both sorts could stand it. The basic thrust of what's in the constitution here and elsewhere is that the militia was supposed to always be much stronger than central government forces, except when the nation was mobilized for war. The federal army's funding required reappropriation every two years, which was thought a sufficient means to sharply limit it's size. The framer's could not imagine a House of Representatives that authorized the ruinous cost of a large peacetime army being re-elected. This pretty much worked as intended until after WWII....

Militias have a very checkered history, and it seems clear that the framer's faith in them was misplaced. Seems to me the notion of popular armament as the basis of the militia is obsolete.

I'm OK with pistols and shotguns for home defense, but I think we should draw the line at citizens routinely going about armed, absent special showing of need recognized by license.

But the Second, it seems to me, does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms, as the courts in recent times have found. Restrictions as I suggest require a new amendment.