You find it funny because you have a misunderstanding over what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the state has external threats and so needs a militia, which is what would be implied by your 'state defending itself' reading. It says a militia is necessary to secure a free State, and so we can't infringe the right to bear arms. That doesn't just mean external threats, and in fact is rooted in the idea that the people are the defense of their community and the holders of their government.

That means it's not about the State defending itself, it's about the people defending the free State. The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home.

SCOTUS didn't change the Constitution however they wanted. That's ridiculous. They applied existing law to a situation they were asked to judge.

My point is that the original intent of the amendment was not for citizens to bear arms for their self-defense. Guns (muskets) at the time were not thought to be used for protection because they were not very accurate and were slow to reload, making them ineffective against intruders. Multiple books and records show that the founding fathers/federalists/etc. only regarded the second amendment in a military context.

> The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home.

This is what I am saying is "funny" - While the decision was well-informed and carefully thought out, the SCOTUS did effectively change the constitution by changing what some text meant. It's not different than case law being the biggest precedent for regular legal proceedings.

This is more a debate of whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of those who wrote it. SCOTUS has shown that they think we should adapt to the times and that the United States can progressive deal with issues, and I believe it worked out in a positive manner for the specific 2008 case granting citizens more rights and freedoms.

"... shall not be infringed" because of the need for a "well regulated militia," not for said militia.

It's an example of why the right is needed. Especially given the people raised a violent coup against their own government. These people were not in favor of disarming the public in general... to interpret it otherwise would be effectively changing the law.

Well regulated also essentially meant "competent" then as well. So it could be interpretted as "so our militia can have enough firearms practice to shoot straight and know how to fire, maintain, and reload the right to have gund shall not be infringed".

Essentially like a justification for public schools and compulsory education being "literacy is essential to function be an informed citizen which is needed for self government". Just like how merely being able to shoot well isn't enough to be a good soldier but it is important.

"well regulated" meant able able-bodied male of adult age. Your definition is likely far more constrained. "practice" in this sense is not generally mentioned, as they were required to own a conventional firearm for the time.

As to "training," there wasn't a regimen of regular firearms training per-se. It was generally considered common knowledge to know how to load and fire one's musket. As to any comparison of modern training, it seems to me like today's police, at least in major cities like NYC receive less training than a typical gun owner outside major cities.

I meant it as unconstrained actually - the rationale and the right are separate things. Essentially unrestricted for the sake of practicality. Thus two separate points.

1. It is important to have a populace capable of using firearms. 2. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course the interpretations are for better or worse living in practice regardless of plain text - freedom of the press still applies to internet and unfortunately the special pleading of obscenity laws have survived for centuries.