kang: .. the United States has never taken the public policy position that only those serving within the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, with others being lawfully excluded from owning arms. It never happened, nor will it.
In certain instances & at times the US did indeed make it unlawful for slaves to own guns; and had a wife, daughter or mother complained to a magistrate in 1795 that her husband/father/son violated her right to bear arms by denying her access to his musket, she could've been laughed out of court &/or possibly divorced or reprimanded as a nutjob.
kang: I feel bad for gun controllers, essentially forced to take illogical positions. Controllers are forced to believe that near the beginning of the Bill of Rights, Amendments clearly designed to limit governmental power and to protect citizens, is a statement designed to enable the government to raise militias and to keep individuals from owning firearms.
No, those of us who have studied the issue don't think that at all, esp the part about keeping individuals from owning firearms. Indeed the militia act of 1792 (5 months after 2ndA written) encouraged americans to own, purchase & bring personal firearms to militia duty - harpers ferry & springfield armories either not open yet or scant production.
So don't feel bad for us, for a figment of your imagination.
The 2ndA & the subsequent militia act of 1792 only covered about 20% of americans in the 1790 census; (iirc about 750,000 white males 18 - 45 yr old, maybe a quarter of which owned a firearm.
The 1792 militia act was militia centric, since relatively few americans owned firearms in 1792 it encouraged militia members to purchase or provide their own firearms; but of course 2ndA was a limitation on congress as well as a guarantee of personal rights (to belong to militia).
= new reply since forum marked as read