...written prohibition in the Constitution against a standing army. At the conclusion of the war, Washington disbanded the Continental Army. The preservation of the RKBA of the individual is a means to ensure that a militia and, if and when necessary, an army may be raised and called upon for the purposes outlined in the Constitution.

History has shown that it is when the military, in whatever form, takes on a character and make up different from the common people that freedom is lost. It is the RKBA that enable each individual to practice and it is that practice which benefits usefully participation in a militia. Historically, standing armies have been armed while the common man was unarmed.

We, as a country, have agreed that the "cut-off" is for personal arms. That is weapons operated and carried by one person which may be useful against an aggressor. The spirit of the 2A is simple; government isn't allowed to mess with the individual RKBA up to the point I've noted above. I don't feel that either of the two concepts I've just written require insanity or anything like it for folks to agree with and participate in those principles.

Arms are defined by numerous public laws.

We can best protect the public safety by 'promoting the general Welfare' in the form of universal healthcare so that those who need support and care for mental illness can be more certain of getting it and by mostly eliminating the war on drugs which would mostly eliminate the casualties on both sides. That would be a helluva start.

ETA: I haven't see you here but hope you'll return. Thanks for the reply.