Reply #32: LOL. I love when people tell you to read something that they haven't read themselves...

[DanTex]

The Stevens dissent very clearly stated that 2A was about militias and not private use of firearms for self-defense, which is the point the OP was making.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html


PS. You know that gun blog that you got your ideas about the Heller case from? It's wrong about lots of other things too...