Gun Control & RKBA

Here are some links to contemporary uses of the term:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Here is an article talking about playing a well-regulated (well tuned) piano:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=74072

And finally, tuning a piano is still called regulation. Look it up yourself if you don't believe this link:

http://www.ptg.org/Scripts/4Disapi.dll/4DCGI/cms/review.html?Action=CMS_Document&DocID=59&MenuKey=Menu7

Is this enough to convince you that the term well-regulated didn't mean something is tightly controlled, but rather in top condition? That a well-regulated militia is one that is armed and trained so that it can respond to any threats?

Besides, no matter how much you twist words, the term "the people" in the Bill of Rights, that is used to describe individual rights in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments, is also describing an individual right in the 2nd amendment. Any attempt to say otherwise has no basis in fact.

Indeed, the "Collective Rights" theory rests solely on a modern interpretation that itself has no rational core that can be defended. A close reading of Miller shows that no one even showed up for the defendant in the original case. If they had, they could have demonstrated quite easily that a short-barreled shotgun was indeed a weapon of war - they were used during the trench warfare stage of WWI. Hell, modern U.S. military shotguns have barrels as short as 14 inches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500

So, Miller was a flawed decision based on a one-sided argument. Other than that, there is no legal basis for interpreting the 2nd as a collective right.

I hope this at least spurs you into researching your argument further. I believe that if you do this, you will find for yourself just how thin the ice is that your argument stands on.