General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Amendment 2 Blues [View all]H2O Man
(73,513 posts)the history of Amendment 2" is what is needed to clear up the possible confusion that you correctly note. For a couple of good examples, both extremely well-documented, I'd suggest reading "The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment," by Stephen P. Halbrook, and "Minimalist Interpretations of the Second Amendment," by Don B. Kates, Jr.
Halbrook, while not my favorite attorney, also wrote a solid (if unattractive) book in 1984, titled "Let Every Man Be Armed" (University of New Mexico Press). Kates was a partner in a law firm in San Francisco. Both men were widely recognized as "Constitutional scholars" who specialized in Amendment 2 issues.
I'm not in agreement with much of either's philosophy. However -- rare as it is on DU these days -- I advocate reading the thoughful opinions of people who one disagrees, even strongly, with. Not only do these two gentlemen make a strong case for their opinions on Amendment 2's definitely, without any question, being about both group and individual rights per guns, but they provide solid proof that, as a matter of Constitutional Law, the federal courts (including the USSC) have consistently ruled that way, too.
(Note: a fun activity might be found in asking DUers exactly what phrase was almost included in Amendment 2; where it would have been stated; and about the discussions/ debates that resulted in its not being included.)