OK, I don’t think we’ll have any meaningful discourse here. Have a nice day.
But actual militias are goddamn scary so government prefers to allow individual gun ownership that amounts to nothing except thinning the herd of trigger happy rednecks.
But that’s not how militias were organized. Having militia men bring their personal firearms is a practice that long predates the US.
I am of the view, though, that the right to bear arms, while personal, is still connected to potential militia service. I don’t think it follows from the second amendment that you can carry your guns around in public, etc. The second amendment is both broader and narrower than the Heller interpretation.
My reading is that the intention was for the states to have right to keep Swiss style volunteer armies, but what was dangerous was the "well organized militia" bit so it's not implemented. Instead guns and ammunition are allowed to be freely distributed to prevent the organization and exacerbate chaos between the people in the event of uprising against the government. If the anarchy comes, because of the prevalence of guns and lack of organization local warlords will quickly arise and mostly kill each other in struggle for power. Then the oppressive government comes in and just sweeps the thinned herd.
Once you remember that “militia” meant “calling up armed citizens into an organized fighting force” the text makes perfect sense. It says we need people to have personal weapons—especially weapons of war—so they can be called up into a militia.
This is so obvious that the contrary view can only be the legacy of mid-20th century thinking when the bar was on the floor for old white guys. The framers were a bunch of people who had recently overthrown their government with the arms they had in their sheds. Of course that’s what they were getting at with the second amendment.
A far better argument is that the second amendment isn’t incorporated against the states, because incorporation is kind of fake news. I also think that Heller suffers a bit from not going far enough in acknowledging that the second amendment is about overthrowing the government. It’s not really about self defense or handguns.