Misrepresenting the 2nd Amendment. There was never an intent for an individual right to bear arms.

Earlier today somebody sent me this link, which I read an found most intersting.

Here is a portion of what it said:  

The United States Congress was enforcing the idea that state militias of private citizens were the best form of military because they knew that it's nearly impossible for the citizens to rise up against an organized, professional military. A military like the one the British had, a military like the one we have today. A military that the citizens could not possibly overthrow. 

This is also why, up until recently, all case law has allowed the states to regulate arms. It is clear what the founders intended. They did not intend to take regulation away from the states, in fact the opposite is true, just as they did not intend to have a professional national military. 

After the revolution we were a confederacy of 14 separate individual states (yes, 14, I am counting Vermont). That didn't work, so we got a new constitution, our current one, and we became more like one state, and now we are as one state, not fifty. 

If the states decide to license all gun owners, or have ownership requirements, such as training, then that is the right of the state. It could be argued that such is also the right of Congress. 

It's clear that the Second Amendment, much like the Third Amendment, and like the wording of Article I, Section 8, is arcane. The Constitution was not handed down by a divine power, nor was it inspired by one. In particular, the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could wage war, but the military power would be preserved to the individual states. Thinking along those lines has long since been abandoned. 

What is particularly interesting about the Second Amendment debate is that it puts conservatives on the wrong side of the big government argument. They don't like big government telling the states what to do, except when big government wants to tell the states that they can't regulate firearms, or allow people to get gay married. It's an absurd contradiction, to say the very least. In fact, the very amendment that conservative justices on the Supreme Court used to push guns, the 14th, is one that many prominent conservatives would like to see repealed. 

Anyone for states’ rights should be in support of the state having the ability to regulate the arms of its own residents and the sale of firearms and ammunition within its own borders. Anyone against activist judges should decry the recent Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment, as it is far from what its authors intended. It was designed for national security. 

We in the United States no longer have amateur militias. We have professional police and the most advanced, and most expensive by far, military in the history of the known universe. 

I can't say with certainty whether Madison would approve of America's 21st century war machine, but I can say for sure that if he were here today he would reject the Supreme Court's interpretation, and be puzzled as to why the United States isn't fighting the epidemic of gun violence that we alone suffer from in the ranks of modern and free nations. 

Currently there is an incredible amount of passion and misinformation on the topic of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment (Hell even Bill Fulton and I argued about it he other day.), however I feel confident that if the Founding Fathers were to suddenly wake up out of their deadly slumber to what we are dealing with today, they would immediately tear up that Amendment and rewrite it from scratch.  And I seriously doubt it would have much resemblance to the one we have been dealing with for the last two hundred plus years.

Don't you agree?