This message was self-deleted by its author

[sarisataka]

177. Final answer

Firstly- in the debate Quakers were mentioned as an example of those who would not bear arms in military service. Yet it was acknowledged they do use guns for hunting. There was no discussion of them not being able to have arms unless they were willing to render military service.- The the eyes of the debaters there was no connection with the right to own and carry arms with militia service, it was inherent in the individual.

Secondly- Madison's change

1. "compelled to bear arms."
2. "compelled to render military service..."

makes a very important distinction. There are many military jobs that do not require bearing arms e.g. medical work. In the original draft a person could be compelled to military service without actually being required to bear arms; his revision removes the ability to draft a person into non-combat service.

Thirdly- some contemporary state constitutions you omitted referencing

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Fourth- the five states that recommended an right to keep and bear arms be amended to the Constitution:

New Hampshire, 21 June 1788
Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in
Actual Rebellion.
Virginia, 27 June 1788
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural
and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the
Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination
to and governed by the Civil power. . . .
That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon
payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
New York, 26 July 1788
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia,
including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe
defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time
of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to
Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the
Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
North Carolina, 2 August 1788
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence
of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore
ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit;
and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by
the civil power.
Rhode Island, 29 May 1790
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms that a well regulated militia,
including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe
defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of
war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty,
and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity, and that at all times the military
should be under strict subordination to the civil power. . . .
That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon
payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Note the use of the term 'people'- "the people have a right"; "composed of the body of the people". The term people s being used as a collective term to refer to individuals, very common at that time. (See the Fourth Amendment "The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses,...&quot

and finally- SCOTUS has ruled there is an individual right of ownership of arms. In accordance with Article lll of the Constitution, this is final and binding until such time as the Constitution is further amended, negating such ruling or SCOTUS ruling of a different case finds cause to reverse their previous ruling.
Additionally, the Democratic Party platform and the sitting President (a Democrat) have expressly stated their support for an individual right of firearms ownership.

Unless you have a different point, I will not debate the matter further. It is a settled questing, even f many do not like the interpretation.
In any case it is irrelevant as it is also agreed gun control laws are permitted within the Second Amendment, short of a total ban. And nobody actually is saying ban all guns, right?