[Buffalo Wing]

Holy cow... I'm not even sure where to start defending my statements.

I'll start with the militia as it was historically understood, I suppose, since Tommy concentrates so much on that. The militia had a requirement to provide their own weapons. There were typically requirements along the lines of how much ammunition they needed to be able to provide themselves. I don't remember seeing any law restricting what actual weapon a militiaman could choose for himself (though I'll happily stand corrected on that point if anyone can provide proof).

Furthermore, significant numbers of the Founders indicated that part of their support for the 2A lay in the ability of an armed populace to resist the tyranny of its own government. Government restrictions on what types of arms may be owned would fly directly in the face of that. It's very easy to show up and collect the required militia rifle if you know everyone has one (or that it's the only thing everyone has).

I'm not even going to touch the idea of class-based restrictions anymore. I'll only add that I actually hope someone tries it, legislatively. It will produce the strongest judicial support for the 2A seen yet, because if there is one thing that gets the courts hot and bothered, it's class-based restrictions on any right.

As for my concern about rights versus responsibilities, please note that all my comments about "activities" applied to my comments on 1A restrictions. However, since you want to tie the 2A so strongly to militia service in its only applicable purpose, surely you can admit that we would need to be able to engage in "activities" with our firearms in order to maintain proficiency with them and properly practice the responsibility that the right carries?

I'll take up your registration thoughts, too, if you want - I didn't perceive them to be central to your piece and didn't want to drone on ad nauseum. For starters, they won't work - ask the Canadians, or my homestate (see, oddly enough, Gov. Cuomo's ending of the statewide handgun ballistics registry which never solved a single crime despite its massive cost overruns). For seconds, the paper registration you propose can be as easily abused by the government for confiscation as a computer-based system. See the United Kingdom. For thirds, although it hasn't been established by the Courts yet, I see no reason why a registration system should pass Constitutional muster. It's an infringement of the right with no positive furtherance of any legitimate government interests.

I may appear as a "defeatist" with regards to my home state, but it's only the state government's way of doing business that's made me that way. For my home state, I must place my faith in the courts at this point (which I do). For other states, and the country as a whole, I have far more hope.

As for the polls, they're inconclusive at best. Most people say they want universal background checks and that's about it. Amusingly, while a lot of polls do suggest support for a renewed assault weapons ban, the public seems to be hypocritically voting with its pocketbook on that subject at this very moment, as one can't find an AR-15 and 30 round magazines to save one's life. That's typical of the American voting public and shows why the polls may not really be so reliable.

I'll finish on two major thoughts. First, Heller already separated the 2A's protections from the prefatory clause you have attached so much of your argument too, as Vanya and others have pointed out. It's already well established as an individual right not solely focused on one's ability to be a militia member. Second, I do care about the collective applications of the right, which is why I take the individual applications so seriously. The Founders rightly understood that the militia was inherently related to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is why they saw fit to attach it as one purpose for the codification of the right. However, that doesn't change the fact that their language in the 2A is as individualistic as the Constitution gets (see other rights referencing 'the People'). You'll find my opinion to be very consistent across all of those rights, as well.

Edit to add, because I forgot after all of my responses: I, too, find your arguments to have a strong statist flavor. That's not the principle our country and our Constitution were founded on.