Gun Control & RKBA

That right already existed. That right was also codified (in a marital context) along with the militia clauses in the body of the constitution.

The Militias (AKA the people) already had the right and duty to serve, and so had the right to arms.

Mr Scott, 20 Aug, 1789 when debating the article which later became the 2nd amendment.

It was only because the new Central govt was given power for providing the guideline for how the people would arm themselves that the 2nd was deemed necessary. The people could not be DIS-armed by any act of govt.


The state militias were well-understood entities at the time. ALL the people (with notable exceptions) were expected to serve, so ALL the people had the right to arms secured. The people want(ed) to change the definition of "militia" fine, but that was not the intent of the 2nd (nor of the constitution), - it does not affect its securities.


It is also quite clear that the founders did not intend that THE vice-president, ALL the member of congress, postal Clerks and stage drivers, Judges, etc would be denied the right to arms even though they were exempt from militia service.
Adams? Jefferson? Burr? Gerry? Clinton? Lee? etc. etc?...men who just fought a revolution over rights (a revolution started by attempts to disarm them) willingly give up the right to arms?!? That makes NO sense.