Not really a Flame, but in reference to the Supreme Court defining today what the founding fathers meant, not what they wrote:

If we insist on trying to divine what they were thinking, instead of adhering to the formalism of text, then perhaps we should consider the following. The key phrase in the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," may depend on how the founders defined a militia. Were colonial militias organized military units equipped and trained by local governments, particularly, were they armed by the local authority? Or were they informal groups of citizens who brought their own personal weapons with them during times when they were mustered for duty? If it was impossible in those days to have a militia unless the troops brought their own weapons, the implication of that text is very different than if they were issued weapons by their commanders when mobilized, as they are today.

I still feel that what they wrote over 200 years ago is a legal protection of local soldiery to discourage federal tyrants, not a religious edict that must honored as if it were engraven in stone by the Almighty and can therefore be applied in a context the founders could not possibly have anticipated.

I understand in some countries, where able-bodied males of a certain age have military training and are in the militia, they have their weapons and uniforms in their homes so they can respond instantly if called up, but that they still have severe restrictions on the ownership of personal non-military firearms, particularly handguns.