That is the historical connotation of the second amendment debate during the second Continental Congress. They debated quit profusely over protecting an individuals right NOT to bear arms, I challenge anyone to post from the actual record of the debates a single mention of the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.
There you go, have at it. The reality is, that for over two hundred years, the right to bear arms was linked to service in a militia. There never was a right to bear arms for individual self-defense until Heller. History is replete with examples of states, local governments, and even the federal government either limiting the right to bear arms or outright banning certain weapons. Most famous, the shoot-out at OK Corral, which was the result of efforts of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday seeking to, wait for it, confiscate guns.
In the 19th century, states and localities passed gun ordinances—laws against concealed carry, or laws that disallowed guns in city limits—while the federal government remained silent on gun control. In the 20th century, under FDR, bills imposing measures of federal gun control passed with public support and were upheld by the Supreme Court
Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.
www.topic.com
The whole image of the Colonial American toting around a gun for his own self-defense, or even brandishing one in the wilderness to attain his nourishment by hunting is precisely that, a damn myth. Guns were exceedingly expensive, and prior to the Kentucky long rifle, very inaccurate. The colonists were terrible hunters, multiple "starving times" while living in an area teeming with wildlife, some hunters. About the only way most colonists used guns to attain food was trading them with the Native Americans.
Yep, they didn't talk about an individual right to self defense, there is one, but it's not from the Second Amendment.
As I've posted before (and got told it wasn't relevant) there's the debate in the House (Senate debates were secret)
The clause they were talking about
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
They went back and forwards over whether the 2A should have "shall be compelled to bear arms" and "shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Clearly they used "render military service" and "bear arms" as synonyms.
Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples,"
Clearly he's using "militia duty" synonymously with "render military service" and "bear arms".
No Personal self defense here.
In fact, this doesn't appear for quite a while in state constitutions.
"1776 North Carolina:
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"
There's the right to "bear arms", or "render military service" or "militia duty" to defend the state. Nothing else here.
Similar is "1780 Massachusetts:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
"common defence" is the same as the defense of the state, though could mean that if Injuns attacked a settlement, the settlement could defend itself, for example.
Then you have:
"1776 Pennsylvania:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"
You have "defence of... the state" but also "defence of themselves". Notice the plural in "themselves" English grammar is a little vague on the plural and singular of "themselves", because "them" is plural, but can be singular. Do we say "themself"? Are we referring to all the individuals here as individuals, or as a collective as in "common defence"?
"1796 Tennessee:
That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
Even 20 years later they were still making clauses that talked about "common defence", here you see "their common defence", clearly the "their" is similar to "themselves" but clearer grammatically.
"1817 Mississippi:
Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."
Now we're 40 years later and we're seeing individualness. "defence of himself" as opposed to "themselves". I don't think this is just a casual thing, Mississippi is suddenly changing things to something more akin to the individual.
Connecticut did the same thing the year later. Alabama another year on.
Clearly the historical context for the Second Amendment is one where the protection for guns is all about common defense. Not about individual self defense. No state had such a clause at the time, it took 40 years for that to come about, the debates in Congress were about protecting the militia:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia?" Mr Gerry said. He didn't say "what use are guns?"
