Here we go
True. But keep in mind, the Bill of Rights also applied
exclusively to Congress, until a) the passage of the 14th Amendment, and b) the SCOTUS agreed that specific provisions of the BoR were incorporated to the states, typically on the basis that they implicitly protected an individual right. Thus, the 14th Amendment radically changed the BoR.
That said, at a minimum we should recognize that
Heller radically altered the interpretation of the 2A as an individual right, whereas previously it was only seen as protecting arms to keep militias operational.
Well, sort of. Some of that generation's politicians were strongly against standing armies, hence the desire to ensure militias were properly armed. Keep in mind that many were in favor of standing armies, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
You may have a point, except that it is up to legislators to ultimately decide what citizens can own, and the rules around them. What they can't do is make the rules so onerous that owning certain classes of firearms (notably pistols and standard rifles) is nearly impossible.
That said, if you do agree with
Heller, then the claim that citizens should be granted unfettered access to assault rifles because they are "military weapons" goes out the window.
Well, I know quite a bit. I'm curious though, what are you hunting that you'd actually
need an AR? Are the deer firing back now?
Anyway...
It meant that Congress was empowered to set rules for firearm ownership -- but it couldn't cross the line into making it impossible for militias to function. There were also plenty of laws around firearms, though far more common in Europe than in the US. So yes, the idea does hold up.
True, but that's why he was in favor of a professional standing army, and proposed that (along with better trained militias) in 1783:
A regular and standing force, for Garrisoning West Point & such other Posts upon our Northern, Western, and Southern Frontiers, as shall be deemed necessary to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbours of Canada and the Florida’s, and guard us at least from surprizes; Also for security of our Magazines....
Altho’ a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few. The same circumstances which so effectually retarded, and in the end conspired to defeat the attempts of Britain to subdue us, will now powerfully tend to render us secure. Our distance from the European States in a great degree frees us of apprehension, from their numerous regular forces and the Insults and dangers which are to be dreaded from their Ambition.
We also know, with absolute certainty, that Washington, Hamilton and others favored a standing army.
As to militias? It's very obvious that they are an outdated and obsolete concept. A citizen militia cannot possibly keep the US safe, or protect its interests abroad. Their time has passed. And with them, no matter how flawed the legal reasoning or hypocrisies of
Heller, the links between the 2A and militias.