Just an aside, actually the Man of War was the pinnacle of military technology at that time. Private persons owned well armed ships as well, but nothing capable of going toe to toe. Comparable to me having a backhoe vs a Fed tank, potentially useful but really not effective... not that I've considered such things. ;)

The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.

It seems clear that the concern addressed by the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the freedom of the State in a federation. Having been formed by revolution against a government, and viewing themselves as independent sovereign states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal union of states was "conditional" on certain assurances of freedom of the State from the federation. High on the list was the right of the people to continue to keep and bear their arms to defend the State from the other states and the federation, if need be. Having just proved that an armed militia was necessary to achieve freedom of self determination it was the accepted notion.

In the context of the period, the people had just fought a revolution against their legitimate government, so self-determination was a very high priority and the founding fathers realized that such rights are often achieved and maintained by armed forces of the people of the State seeking self determination.

There are still folks in the NRA who still see their guns as the best defence against their own federal government. Ruby Ridge, etc.

For many, that notion is anachronistic. For others, it is a clear example of why the people need to stockpile weapons in their homes.

In modern times, many Americans interpret the constitutional language to support their current perceived need pack heat to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, terrorists and assorted mofos.

self defense 401
 

I think that the typical person who thinks they need a gun really just needs a way to stop an attacker.

What about alternate means? More of these are being developed all the time, some are pretty cool.

I want one where I can throw or aim a device at an approaching mugger that instantly encases him in some kind of clear acrylic, tougher than steel but light enough that I can still cart the suspect into a courtroom on a dolly as exhibit A.

"See your honor? Look at that expression on his face, and the way that knife is raised, he was definately up to no good".

Maybe. But I'd point out "Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (1982)

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

as a source of some very interesting constitutional scholarship on that issue, especially the preface written by Hatch.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1

These are probably the grounds on which the Ashcroft Justice Department has taken the stand they have.

Re: self defense 401
 

Problem is that old slippery slope. For example: here in Canada not only is your average citizen restricted from CCW, she also can't carry a can of pepper spray [1] or mace. I don't think tasers are legal either. Any of the nifty personal protection devices are also useable by robbers, rapists, and muggers and seem to quickly become illegal to possess.

[1] pepper spray is legal only if you carry a 16 oz or larger container. At least I can carry some protection from bears when out in the woods.

Unfortunate reality: most of those alternate self-defense gizmos are basically shit for self defense. Pepper spray hurts, but there's no guarantee it'll drop a guy, and even less you can get to it fast. Same for ranged tasers. Guns don't really improve on those flaws, but at least you can get training for one; don't think I've ever heard of a course in pepper-spray use.

Touch tasers are even worse, though. Have to get the guy in the neck for the full effect, see. Nearly impossible to do that in a struggle, but it's easy when you're sneaking up behind someone. In other words, it's a lovely weapon for rapists and crap for stopping them.

This illustrates one of the core gun-control fallacies: that a weapons prohibition law will prevent criminals from arming themselves more than it prevents law-abiding people from defending themselves..

It's just not true....law-abiding citizens comply with laws *much* more than criminals do; why that's so hard to follow escapes me. And prohibitions that create contraband really never work. In an ideal world they might, but then an ideal world wouldn't need laws.