> the interpretation of the Second Amendment as granting an individual the right to have personal guns independent of a militia is a very recent interpretation
IIRC, in colonial America, the militia was understood as basically "all male citizens," and its members typically used personal weapons.
That makes the text and structure of the Second Amendment make a lot of sense: if a militia is necessary for security, and an armed populace is required for a militia, then to protect the militia you have to protect the right of the populace to be armed.
When you remove the immediate context of the sentence and squint real hard you can almost read a "well regulated militia" to mean a completely unregulated individual.
IIRC, in colonial America, the militia was understood as basically "all male citizens," and its members typically used personal weapons.
That makes the text and structure of the Second Amendment make a lot of sense: if a militia is necessary for security, and an armed populace is required for a militia, then to protect the militia you have to protect the right of the populace to be armed.