I find it hard to believe the the 2nd Amendment is exclusively for national defense

[jmg257]

9. Of course the 2nd was a guard against the govt. It was intended to keep the

govt from destroying the militias, and building an army upon their ruins. The govt would destroy the militias by disarming them - the people whose duty and right it was to serve.

The militias had to be armed, and they had to be well-regulated. They were necessary.

Mr. Gerry {re: religious exception in the article which became the 2nd}

This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

BUT, it is also true that the constitutional well-regulated militias are no longer thought necessary. We maintain a HUGE standing Army, Navy, MC, AF, etc. The National Guard, a federal entity, a reserve for the federal armies, armed by the federal govt, has since been created to take the place of the Militias of the Several States which were made from the whole body of the people.

This is what makes the primary purpose of the 2nd - securing the militias, obsolete.