Sounds highly illogical to me. That totally won't ever be abused, like every vague law is, by every political party ever.
Your hard line interpretation in this thread is a pretty recent thing in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and Burger's opening sentence in that quote is accurate.
"(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." [0]
Also bear in mind the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If it meant just the militia they would have written it was the militia's right not the people's right.
Your interpretation here is merely one of a few, rather than factual. There have been many Supreme Court justices who did believe the wording gave militias (or "collective") a right. It mostly stems from the opening ("prefatory") clause, and the meaning of the comma separating it from the final ("operative") clause.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one.
Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia?
What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft.
> Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms
