Nothing I Haven't Been Saying for a While

Posted on the 13 September 2013 by Mikeb302000
Jeffrey Toobin at Frontliine:
The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.
Now what makes this subject so difficult in the modern world is that state militias don’t exist anymore, so we have no familiarity with what a state militia is. But it was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms.

Of course, what is really needed isn't a legal scholar (or someone who is just a legal scholar), but someone who is also a military historian of the first rate  since what the Second Amendment addresses is national defence and how what would that look like in the nascent republic.  Also, one has to understand that the founding fathers had this idea that they were the new Romans (which could be an accurate assessment since the Romans were basically warlike not very intellectual, but were fond of the Greeks who were).
Anyway, there is loads of evidence that the militia was already irrelevant by the time of the War for Independence (see Adam Smith infra):
But, I'm not going to stop the likes of Greg from believing whatever he wants even though he can't provide a good basis for his belief other than he wants it to be so.

Second Amendment Bibliography