You've added words to it that aren't there
It's called paraphrasing, and in this case there is no difference in meaning between what I typed and what was written in the Constitution.
"well regulated militias"
well ahhh ... I believe you have done exactly what you accused me of i.e. added words which are not intended. Militias were well understood in colonial times and at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It constituted a levied group of local citizens which ere called by state government for which each county would comply with their requisite number of soldiers. Usually it was a 3 month tour of duty, encompassing roll calls and marching in formation. County records detail the soldier lists, the elected officers, AWOLs etc. i.e. "well regulated".
Remember at the time of Washington's inauguration, the US had no standing army. It had a small professional officer corps which was used as the leaders of state militias when they were called on by the president. Also remember no state provided weapons to the levied citizens serving in the militia. It was assumed by the states each would provide their own weapon. Thus no government entity could infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as should they do so, there would not be a cadre of armed soldiers.
So here's the problem with your argument about guns. Congress passed the Army Act of 1901 to reorganize the current status of the army and converted into the modern army we know today. The act effectively did away with "state militias" which relied on quarterly levies, and converted them into the voluntary reserve army. When it did so only a few states continued their militias, which then became voluntary, and mostly for ceremonial purposes. Now since the Act effectively did away with the need for "well regulated" militias, it essentially did away with the infringement phrase.
Because the US Army no longer relied on individuals providing their own weapons while in state militias, states could regulate as they deemed fit. Thus states could deem it necessary to allow citizens to own AR-15's or Thompson machine guns to kill prairie dogs, so long as the federal government did not see the same weapons as a danger to the general public to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
So my question is, since immigrants still desire to come to America despite the perk of having their children shot at by armed assailants in schools, why do we continue to issue loaded uzi's to every new born baby?
