Not sure if this has been posted already, but this should stimulate some interesting discussion:
A very interesting and accurate article. I have never understood why liberals always tried to interpret the second amendment the way that they did. Often times they would say that it applies to the National Guard, even though the Supreme Court previously ruled that the National Guard was not the Militia.
In fact since the National Guard comes under the control of the president whenever he decides to nationalize it, it cannot serve as a check on an oppressive federal government. In order for the second amendment to serve as a check on a potentially oppressive federal government (which the founders feared), the second amendment would either allow private individuals to keep and bear arms, or it would allow the states to create their own independent Militias.
If the states were allowed to create their own Militias could they have their own infantry and armored forces? Could Texas establish its own air force? Could states like California and Florida have naval forces? It seems that because the liberal arguments regarding the 2nd amendment were just designed to justify eliminating private gun ownership, they were never really thought out. The 2nd amendment had to mean something and since it applied as a right against the powers of the federal govt...it would have to apply to the people as individuals or collectively at the state level.
In their decision, the Supreme court made what was clearly the most logical and reasonable conclusion, especially since there are already 300 million guns in the United States. At least 40 state constitutions recognize an individual right to bear arms, and many of them such as the one in my state of Michigan do not mention a militia. Most liberals would have been horrified if the Supreme court would have ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to state Militias and in subsequent years many western and southern states began to actually create Militias.