Diuretic
Permanently confused
Was there a standing army in the US at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights? That may throw a bit of light on it. Also I would assume that the English tradition which existed for several hundred years may have had an influence on those charged with drafting the Bill of Rights. England didn't have a standing army until Cromwell, it had regional militia and for that to be effective men had to possess arms.
Anyway it's interesting but moot given the interpretations by the US Supreme Court.
Yes, there was a standing army at the time of the drafting. I'll pardon you for not knowing the Army's year of birth was 1775. The Army has been in continuous existence since then. The size of the army was not large, but the standing army was never large until after WW II.
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the second part, but let's take a look at what Scalia says in relevant part:
The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
D.C. v. Heller
Thank you for the information about the Army. The latter part of my post was an acknowledgement that no matter what anyone outside the US Supreme Court says about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment it has no effect. And thanks for the extract from Scalia, it's interesting.