I've resisted weighing in on this thread (no doubt, there are listers who would prefer I not do so now) because of past experience discussing the issue...for what little it's worth, I neither like guns nor wish to live in society where only cops have them...
was Amendment #2 intended to prevent Congress from disarming state militias, not prevent it from regulating private ownership of firearms or was it designed to prevent national gov't from disarming individual citizens (who at the time made up the militia)?...when ratifying the constitution in 1787/88, some state conventions included amendment proposals, New Hamphsire asserting that 'Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion' (on the other hand, Massachusetts rejected Sam Adams proposal guaranteeing 'peaceable citizens' the right of 'keeping their own arms)...in Virginia, Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that federal control of the militias would destroy them rather than (as might be expected from the two) the need to insure that people would be armed against gov't tyranny...
Madison's proposed amendment in the first Congress said: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well regulated militia armed but well being the best security of a free country.'
moreover, M's proposal went on to say: 'But no person religiously surupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.'
the House of Rep's passed M's proposal...the Senate, however altered the
wording a but, flip-flopped order, and took out the part about military service...what it passed became #2...
US Supreme Court has only ruled in cases involving #2 a few times and its most extensive statement on the matter was in *US v Miller* (1939): 'The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'
*Miller* has court interpreting and applying #2 with view to maintaining militia...amendment was pretty much ignored by constitutional scholars until recently when some began to make the individualist argument... see Sanford Levinson (a critical legal studies guy or was) 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment,' Yale Law Journal, December 1989 for most often cited article from this perspective...
have gone on long enough here so I'll finish by pointing out that Supreme Court has not 'incorporated' #2 so it only applies to national gov't...it doesn't limit power of state & local gov'ts to regulate firearms... Michael Hoover