In response to:
Yes it is the rationale for the right to bear arms. It was described as a "well-regulated" militia. Hmmm... I wonder why it was described that way? Sounds to me like the framers understood that there would likely need to be regulations. The framers clearly had a certain perspective about firearms and could hardly be expected to envision their evolution to the killing machines that they have become. But, they had the good sense to recognize that there could be regulations concerning firearms. And they did not put a bound on the scope or shape of such regulations. In the 21st century, esp in highly populated areas, certain regulations make obvious common sense.
When you argue for a living, you can tell how an argument is going for you. The evidence and my gut both tell me that the liberals have lost control of the gun control narrative.
Not for lack of trying – it was almost as if they were poised to leap into action across the political, media and cultural spectrum the second the next semi-human creep shot up another “gun free zone.” This was their big opening to shift the debate and now it’s closing. They’ve lost, and they are going nuts.
The evidence is all around that...
The militia is not the army. The militia is every adult citizen. The reason that it exists is to ward off domestic tyranny not to fight foreign invaders. Citizens must be able to own arms sufficient to chastise the tyrannical impulses government, hence the 2nd Amendment.
I know it's an unpopular idea, but reading what the actual founders had to say about what they put in the document might be in order. If one does, and then reads the 2nd Amendment in modern parlance, the words look like this:
*Since a group of able-bodied men well trained to act in an orderly military fashion is required for the security of a country free from despotism, the inviolate and natural freedom of every individual to own, possess, and employ the weapons of warfare shall not be abridged by the federal government.*