The pushback on the "individual right" thing is always so funny to me, because if you really believe that 2A was about membership in a "militia" then it's meaning is that the government can't disarm itself.
It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.
> During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.
Even today, there are organized, state-run militia (the National Guard) and unorganized, independent militia.
I think you're deliberately missing my point, which is that to take your position literally you have to think 2A was about making a rule to keep only a state-run organization armed right after they had just fought (and won) a war of independence using, among others, individuals and "unorganized, independent militia" and the weapons they personally owned. It truly strains credulity to think the Founders sat down and wrote with that intent. Plus, you can actually just go back and read what they wrote about their reasoning back then if you want. It's all in the public record. That it took the Court this long to actually have to say it is more a function of the deliberate gaslighting that's taken place in the 20th century to convince people this right never existed. Even in Dred Scott Chief Justice Taney noted that if African slaves were given citizenship they'd be allowed to "keep and carry arms wherever they want".
I think most people that actually follow the "it was about membership in the militia" interpretation really do believe that only the government should be allowed to have weapons. That's fine, and there's an argument to be made there, but I'd appreciate it if they just made that argument rather than rewriting history.
It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.
reply