When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation.

On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures.

On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.

▲

bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.

▲

Terr_ an hour ago | parent [-]

I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.

Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.

	▲	15155 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?

▲

Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy.

If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.