I’ve come to understand the gun nuts position on the Second Amendment a bit better, and they have a pretty good case for their beliefs.  This has come about as the result of my tendency to try to understand that which is not.

I researched what a “militia” was at the time the Constitution was written.  I had assumed it was sort of like the National Guard on a city or county level.  People were enrolled, trained, and belonged.  They were not particularly well equipped, and certainly not outfitted by the State, County, City or Village but by themselves.  I was wrong.

Militias were ad hoc military units composed of civilians with guns who answered a call to arms.  They supplied their own arms and just showed up when requested.  Or they didn’t.

Therefore, it was in the interest of the rebellion that there be an armed segment of the population which was available to participate in battles alongside the Regular forces.  (That they were unreliable and tended to run away at the first volley was used to advantage on occasion.)

So, I will admit the Constitution intended for the population to be armed.  What “well-regulated” means and how it applies is a different issue, and if included in the debate would probably limit who possesses which arms.