I'm sure many people interpreted it that way, but they're also wrong, and they evidently didn't write either the Constitution or the Militia Act, or 2A. And I

I'm sure many people interpreted it that way, but they're also wrong, and they evidently didn't write either the Constitution or the Militia Act, or 2A. And I guess when I refer to intent, I mean those authors. Militias were explicitly under the control of both Congress and the president, by law and the Constitution. And militias were used to quell rebellion, not to serve it. These are facts. I understand they're counter to your and others' interpretations, but that doesn't make them any less factual. And when you consider: - 2A only applied to militias - Any "security from tyranny" was States being free from Federal tyranny - the Civil War erased any doubt about the States rebelling against the Federal government - The last Militia Act in 1909 made militias into the _National_ Guard then you have to concede 2A is just a relic from a time when the US had neither the resources nor the political will to create and maintain a standing army.