The Second Amendment was NOT written to enshrine every American with the right to own a gun for hunting, sport or self-defense from violent crime. These un-enumerated rights are merely incidental benefits of what the framers of the constitution originally meant. Pure and simple, the Second Amendment was intended for one thing and one thing only: power. The framers wanted citizens to have the literal firepower to rein-in their politicians and unelected bureaucrats. Our founding fathers were revolutionaries. Extremists. Radicals. Insurgents. Guerrillas . . .
They wanted private citizens to be better armed than the armed forces of the government. AND they gave citizens other tools to express themselves or rein in an unpopular government.
It is times like these, when the government we elected passes laws that empowers them to confiscate our property (new taxes) and violate our liberty (forcing citizens to buy medical insurance), gun owners need to remember that firearms are the last civic weapon drawn in dissent.
In 1787, Thomas Jefferson, our third President, wrote to Colonel William S. Smith (referring to Shays’ Rebellion, a revolt of Massachusetts farmers against high taxation and debtor prisons):
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Jefferson echoed these sentiments more concisely in letter to his friends James Madison and Abigail Adams
I like a little rebellion now and then.
Jefferson possessed one of the greatest minds of his time. But he was wrong for his casual support for armed uprising; just as he was wrong about the French Revolution, slavery (his actions, not words) and his personal finances.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were mass-murdering morons, not revolutionary heroes. Ted “the Unabomber” Kaczynski and Andrew Joseph Stack III were lone kooks, not modern-day prophets of liberty. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn should be rotting in prison, not hobnobbing with presidents and educating our young people at [formerly] esteemed universities.
Groups like ALF, AOG, BLA, ELF, JDL, KKK, SSCS should be repudiated with same prejudice we accord an Islamic fundamentalist in a C-4 diaper, not excused or offered financial aid by those who sympathize with their ends.
Before raising arms, we Americans must exhaust our rights to free speech, vote and due process.
Never before has our First Amendment right to free speech been stronger. No longer must political news and opinion be funneled through three media networks. Tools like the Internet and wireless communications have greatly enhanced our ability to bleed their spleens and solicit support for their ideas without first kowtowing to an old gray lady with a jaundiced eye.
If we don’t like the direction our elected officials are dragging the nation, be patient. Work to vote out incumbents at the midterm election. Participate in local primaries and caucuses to put quality candidates on the ballot.
Consider how President Lincoln intellectually wrestled with the use of the Second Amendment as he confronted the seven states that declared their independence from the U.S. in the weeks prior to his first inauguration.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise… their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
However, Lincoln reasoned, secession was not justified because there was not “a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied [citizens of the breakaway states].” Therefore, “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.”
If only…
Gun control proponents like to scare people by saying that American streets would become the Wild West if everyone had handguns. I think that’s silly. But I’m glad that America hasn’t devolved into countries like Somalia or Afghanistan, where well-armed warlords and militias administer their own brand of tyranny, unchecked by impotent governments.
So what does the Second Amendment mean for us today? In 2008, the Supreme Court clarified that the language in the constitution regarding the formation of a “well regulated Militia” does not detract from “the right of the people,” meaning individuals, as used throughout the rest of the Constitution, “to keep and bear Arms.” Furthermore, the court ruled that self-defense from common crime is intrinsic in the notion of individual self-defense from tyranny.
IN the run-up to new civilian disarmament legislation, no doubt the media and political commentators will portray law-abiding gun owners as right-wing extremists. As the battle to protect the Second Amendment is joined, they will accuse gun rights advocates of fostering—if not organizing—anti-government violence.
This assessment is wrong. But there’s no denying the average American’s extreme dissatisfaction with the government that holds power over him or her. And it’s not entirely inappropriate to see the gun rights movement’s rallies as the initial rumblings of a revolutionary spirit which, once upon a time, lead to armed revolt.
The threat, the possibility, of such a popular, and yes, armed uprising has the government deeply worried. As it should. Why else would Vice President Joe Biden threaten to use an Executive Order to achieve the scope and scale of disarmament the Administration could not achieve through the legislative process?
Might there come a day when it is appropriate for the American people to rise up in arms against their government? Perhaps. If ever we are collectively denied our rights to express our political views and to vote. If the legal systems of our government collapses. Until such a time might come, keep your guns holstered. For now, open your mouths and punch your ballots.
[First published in 2010. Modified for current times.]
The Second Amendment was, first and foremost, about the role of citizens in "the Militia", which was the equivalent to what we now refer to as the National Guard.
The Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791, directly references the Militia: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not just any old militia, but a "well regulated" one.
The Second Amendment, of course, amends the Constitution, which was ratified four years earlier. If you have any doubts about what the "Militia" was, you need not have any, as it is referenced three times in the Constitution that preceded the Second Amendment. It is rather obvious that the Militia isn't just a rag tag group of self-appointed vigilantes, but a formal body subject to federal jurisdiction.
Article 1, Section 8 references the Militia in two separate clauses:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Furthermore, Article 2, Section 2 makes it clear that the President is the Commander in Chief of not just the regular military, but also of the Militia: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
In a historical context, "arms" were a specific reference to military weapons. The Founders believed that US military forces should be largely staffed by civilians who were called upon when needed, and dismissed when they weren't.
That was a fairly radical idea at the time, in that the old European powers of the day used mercenaries to do the bidding of the king. In effect, the overriding goal of the Second Amendment was to democratize the process of going to war. It was meant to make it difficult for the Congress to go off to war without the tacit approval of its citizens, as the standing military would have been too small to engage in warfare without the participation of the citizen Militia. Under this scenario, it would be impossible to fight if nobody bothered to show up.
We've obviously moved far beyond what the founders intended. With the virtual elimination of the draft, along with the creation of the world's largest professional military, it's clear that nobody in government is relying on the opinions of Militia members to serve as a check and balance on US foreign policy. In that sense, we've become a modern day version of the sort of 18th century European empire that we overthrew in order to achieve our independence.
I agree with you that reference to “arms” is a reference to military weapons. However, I disagree with your insinuation that the right to own such weapons, as envisioned by the writer’s of the Bill of Rights, was contingent upon enrollment in a well-regulated POTUS-led militia. The context of the usage of the term “the people” throughout the Constitution is not a reference to the collective (i.e. the State or federal government) but to the individual. If it were not so, this would be the sole exception throughout the entire document. Thus, the operative clause of the amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” not the prefatory “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
The founders didn’t trust a government enough to empower it with a permanent and well-armed military. Instead, by means of the Second Amendment, they placed the responsibility for the security of the State directly into the hands of the citizenry, who could be temporarily assembled under the leadership of the POTUS only after an official declaration of war by the Congress.
It was plainly understood, as Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address (quoted above), that the power to wage war rested in the people, not the government, and that the people could exercise this “right” to “dismember” and “overthrow” their government should they “grow weary” of it.
Iin this argument, only a few things matter. Most scholars agree that the second amendment does have an operative clause, but if you want to ignore that, fine. We'll start with the definition of a militia:
"The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms."
The Militia Act of 1792 simply said that the Government has the ability to call upon the people to help in terms of emergency and that those that answer the call will serve under the command of the POTUS.
The Militia Act of 1903 did two things: created the National Guard as an "organized militia" and defined the "unorganized militia" as males capable of bearing arms aged 17-45.
So what the Second Amendment is saying is that in cases of emergency, when the government needs to able to call upon men capable of bearing arms, the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (use) arms shall not be infringed.
How can the government call upon citizens to help if the citizens are unarmed? The law has never state that the militia is the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 clearly states that there is a militia outside of the National Guard.
I don't think anyone here would argue that "arms" doesn't mean military weapons – which is why Assault Weapons Bans should be considered unconstitutional.
The other argument you seem to have is "well regulated," which you take to mean well trained or controlled or organized. What it meant at the time was to be "properly prepared." That means that the militia (the people who can be called to bear arms) be properly prepared – of sound mind, body, equipped with their own weapons, and ready to defend their nation.
When you bring up that no other Amendment has an "operative clause" I would bring up that EVERY amendment says "the people" meaning "all the individual citizens" so that clearly the second Amendment is about an individual right, not a collective one.
Quickly still, take note that the many states specifically grant a right to their citizens to keep and bear arms in State Constitutions. Why would state legislators affirm a different right? Clearly they're referring to the same right, as is the case with state affirmations of free speech.
Further, some nitpicking: America does not have the largest army. In terms of soldiers, there are several countries with larger armies, more tanks, etc. China, for example, as more troops, Russia, for example, has more tanks.
Also, the American military isn't considered a "professional military" because it's an all-volunteer army. Next – the Militia was never meant to serve as a check and balance on foreign policy, but rather on domestic issues.
Finally, scholars, the SCOTUS, and the literature of the founding fathers all agree that the Second Amendment means that individual citizens should never be deprived the right to keep and bear arms.
Our elected officials respond to money, and it may be that Teabaggers, members of a group that has long enjoyed prosperity and favor, are starting to realize that they have taken a back seat to multinational corporate interests that can outspend them, and whose interests don't necessarily include them.
Thus, the operative clause of the amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” not the prefatory “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
No, the operative clause of the Second Amendment is the entire amendment. Every word in it, from beginning to end.
You don't get to just pick and choose the parts of the amendment that you like best — like it or not, you're stuck with the whole thing. The verbiage was not fluffy filler, but deliberately chosen by the Founders for reasons that you are not free to ignore because you find it inconvenient.
And it's very clear in the Constitution, which was written four years prior to the Second Amendment, what a Militia is. It's an organized body, arranged by Congress and commanded by the President. A citizen's army.
The right to bear arms is obviously in the context of serving in the Militia. The Constitution makes it clear that the Congress is not free to just exclude citizens from the militia; they have a right to "bear arms", i.e. carry military weapons that are obligatory in service to the militia.
by means of the Second Amendment, they placed the responsibility for the security of the State directly into the hands of the citizenry
The citizens were given that right within the context of a "well-regulated" Militia, organized under Article 1, Section 8 and led via Article 2, Section 2.
If it was as clear cut as you would like to make it seem, then there would have been no need for any reference to a "well-regulated Militia." There is a reason that this point is made at the very beginning of the Amendment; the Founders obviously didn't want us to miss it.
So it's not exactly high praise to them for some of us to skip right over it and act as if it was some sort of mistake or glib expression tossed in there just for kicks. If we wish to disagree with the Founders, that's our right, but let's not make a point of deliberately ignoring the stuff that we don't like.
I glibly skipped over no provision of the Constitution. I read the Amendment this way: In order to have a population of armed citizens to serve in well-regulated militias for the common defense, the framers of the constitution enshrined an unlimited right (“shall not be infringed”) for individuals (“the people”) to own and use (“keep and bear”) military-style weapons (“Arms”).
Thus:
– Militias = "well-regulated" (see, they didn’t even trust quasi-governmental groups with weapons)
– Individuals keeping and bearing military weapons = "shall not be infringed"
The Second Amendment does not say that the right of the people to bear arms is restricted to service in militias. If you can find an example of a founder’s writings or an early American court case that makes such a claim, I would be interested to look into it.
The Second Amendment does not say that the right of the people to bear arms is restricted to service in militias.
The Second Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of "bearing arms" (maintaining military weapons) is in in the context that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
If the Second Amendment called for unfettered rights free of any context, it would have been limited to the latter half of its content: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
But it doesn't simply say that. If the founders had wanted to express a simple, open-ended right to gun ownership, then they would have said it.
You should note that of the 10 amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the only one of the ten that begins with a clause that provides context for the right at issue. The other nine amendments just cut to the chase, with no explanations or caveats.
The Constitution does not address gun control, whether pro or con. It limits its focus on to arms within the context of a militia. Presumably, Congress could pass a law if it so chooses just so long as it does not violate the right of citizens to serve in the militia. Otherwise, the states are free to regulate or not regulate them, as the case may be, under the Tenth Amendment.
Again, if you can find any examples of a pre-Civil War court case or founding father writing that corroborates your interpretation of this, please pass it on.
Federalist No. 29 is entitled "Concerning the Militia," in which Hamilton argued for the need to transfer management of the Militia from the state to federal level:
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense…This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.
Obviously, Hamilton believed it was critical that the militia be "well regulated", and that the level of regulation occur at the federal level. The Militia clause of the Second Amendment isn't just a passing fluke, but specifically contemplated in the very same Federalist Papers to led to the writing of the Constitution.
In Federalist No. 46, Madison argues that the militia was needed because the country was unable to field a standing army large enough to defend it, and adds that the militia was a tool against tyranny. The focus is on the militia in the context of it serving as a counterweight to the undemocratic nature of professional armies as they were used in Europe:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
The "right to bear arms" is not a matter of being able to use guns for just any purpose, but in the context of a militia. The militia was viewed as both a supplement to a federal standing army, and as a defense against abuse by a federal army. "Arms" are military weapons, and "bearing arms" is what a citizen soldier would be doing when using that weapon in his well-regulated Militia.
I'm sorry, but it should be obvious to an objective mind that the founders just didn't give a whole lot of thought to the modern idea of "gun control." As was the case with most things, they adopted no position on it. The Second Amendment clarifies that participation in the Militia is a right of the people — it is not a professional army in disguise, but an organized body that represents the people.
I’m glad you brought up Federalist #46 because it precisely makes the point that I have been making: the framers of the Constitution wanted military power to rest with the people, not the government. In the quote you offer above, Madison is exploring scenarios wherein a State or group of States stand in opposition to the will of the federal government that has designs of encroaching on State authority (note that “State” is always capitalized and “federal government” is always lower case – you can see which he held should be subordinate to the other).
Madison reasons that the largest army that the federal government could form (equaling 1/100 of the population at large, or 1/25 part of those capable of bearing arms) would be opposed by local militias fighting for the State comprised by “citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting [against the federal government] for their common liberties.” Implicit in this are the notions that 1) the citizens are individually armed; 2) they are regulating themselves by virtue of the officers that they elect, not the federal government; and 3) they are not acting under the command of the POTUS, but against him.
And to conclude the quote you began, Madison wrote:
It is clear that Madison (and other framers) envisioned that the population be armed with military arms so that they can quickly organize themselves to stand in direct opposition to the federal government. It flies in the face of reason that Madison could have believed that the armed citizens whom he envisioned fighting against the federal government’s regular army should be regulated by that same federal government.
Yes, the constitution provides for the mustering of an army via militias under the POTUS to repel a foreign invasion. But there is no escaping the fact that the founders intended for individual citizens to be armed with military weapons so that they held the power to fight tyranny from the federal government of United States of America. To them, government tyranny was a much greater threat than a potential foreign invasion. To wit, they were so paranoid about arming the federal government that it took years of debate and the sinking of THOUSANDS of American merchant ships by the French and Barbary pirates before congress authorized the building of just three naval war ships. Adams called the strategy building “wooden walls” (i.e. the wooden hulls of the ships) around the country rather than take the risk of forming a standing federal army on American soil.
Finally, as I stated in my article above, I do not believe that the right to bear arms is absolute or that our country would be better off with a bunch of heavily armed rogue militias bombing federal buildings, attacking military bases, and terrorizing the country. Times and weapons have changed. For example, I would not feel comfortable if my neighbor had a basement full of hand grenades. But this is where we started.
Why can't a law abiding citizen have hand grenades? If someone really wants to blow up something, it's been proven time and time again they'll blow it up.
But if someone wants to chuck a few hand grenades safely into the desert, why not?
Because I don't want to get fragged if my idiot neighbor mishandles his ordinance (not that any of my neighbors are, to my knowledge, idiots).
Paging Anthony Scalia? Andrew Napalitano? Maybe we can leave Ginsberg out of this one….
Something else that has to be considered in the 2nd amendment debate is the history that pre-dates the revolution by more than a century. During the religious strife that preceded and followed the English Civil War, there were numerous incidents where religiously-motivated 'militias' (militias in the sense that the armed gangs in Somalia are militias) would terrorize those of a different religious bent. The culmination of this was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the installation of William of Orange and his wife Mary as co-regents, and in the following year, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which, among other rights, stated that:
"That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; "
The Glorious Revolution would have been within the fairly recent historic memory of the writers of the Constitution, as would the abuses of power that cause Parliament to enact the EBoR in the first place. The intent of these two provisions of the EBoR seem to show both (a) a mistrust of a standing army, and (b) the neccessity for subjects to have the ability to to defend themselves when the government couldn't or wouldn't.
The Militia Act of 1792 simply said that the Government has the ability to call upon the people to help in terms of emergency and that those that answer the call will serve under the command of the POTUS.
There were two Militia Acts of 1792. The key element of the first one, to which you appear to be referring, was that the president could dispatch militias from across state lines if the local militia was unable or, more importantly, unwilling to fight.
The issue wasn't gun control or lack thereof, but of asserting federal authority over the militia. You can see that even not long after the ink was dry on the Federalist Papers that whatever theories they may have held about the right of militias to resist federal power were tossed out the window.
(note that “State” is always capitalized and “federal government” is always lower case – you can see which he held should be subordinate to the other).
Sorry, but that's a poor argument. The whole point of the Federalist was to argue for more centralized power in light of the failures of the Articles of Confederation. That required the subordination of state authority to that of the federal government. The Federalist Papers were effectively a marketing campaign for federalism, and a rebuke of confederation.
It flies in the face of reason that Madison could have believed that the armed citizens whom he envisioned fighting against the federal government’s regular army should be regulated by that same federal government.
How kind of you to completely skip over Federalist No. 29, which is devoted in its entirety to making precisely the opposite point, namely that the militia needs to be "well regulated", which therefore requires federal management. You then used that to misinterpret Federalist No. 46 in the same way that you managed to skip the entire first half of the Second Amendment, presumably because it muddies your argument when the entire document is taken into account.
Again, the point here is that the Second Amendment's focus is not on the right to take one's gun to Starbucks, but on rights with respect to the militia. The founders weren't addressing "gun control" per se, as they were their military requirements.
Taken further, those "rights" are really more a matter of duty — the subtext is that every able-bodied white male of that era was subject to being drafted into service, like it or not. The citizen soldier not only was required to serve, but had to buy his own equipment.
Accordingly, the Constitution doesn't offer us much guidance about gun control, pro or con, aside from the rights attached to the militia. The only way that one can believe otherwise is to ignore half the Second Amendment, disregard most of the history, and distort or avoid the context from which this came.
The right to keep and bear arms was granted to the people so that there could be militias, but it was not granted to the militia, which in turn would grant exclusive license to its members.
In order for the Second Amendment to mean what you divine, it would have to be written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of militia soldiers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
But it doesn’t say that. I doesn’t say that anywhere in the Constitution, early court cases, the Federalist Papers, or any of the writings of the founders. The notion that intent of the Second Amendment right was exclusive to enrollees of government-sanctioned militias is an idea that was popularized during the latter half of the 20th century by gun control proponents. It’s not historically correct.
Look, I’m not saying that what the founders envisioned – the duty of all able bodied Americans to keep Arms and serve in militias – fits today’s society. In fact, the very premise of my article is to point out that fact. But the framers of the constitution simply did not intend the Second Amendment to restrict (i.e. infringe) on the right to keep and bear arms to those who served in federally regulated militias.
I’m not a Constitutional scholar (nor do I play one on TV), but I’m thinkin’ that the Supremes settled the issue of “original intent” with Heller. And they are about to do it again, when they rule (presumably this summer) on the Chicago gun ban laws.
For the record, my understanding of the history of the 2nd is that not only did the Founders recognize the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves against the tyranny of an out-of-control government, but the need for citizens to defend themselves immediately, in personal-defense situations where there was little to no chance they’d get help from the police or military. In that respect, life today isn’t that different from back in the late 1700s – police typically function as a symbolic deterrent and to catch the bad guys after the fact. Odds are, they won’t be there when you need them, because they can’t be everywhere at once.
Speaking of History, the first thing the Nazis did was to confiscate the firearms of the populace. Makes it so much easier to control the sheeple if they can’t fire back. The 2nd Amendment recognized the tendencies of government – any government – to eventually abuse their own powers. As Mr. Montgomery so eloquently pointed out, armed responses to governmental excess should NEVER be a first response, but a LAST one, after all other avenues (ballot box, peaceful protests, et cetera) have been completely exhausted.
Historically, revolutions reach their tipping point when the sentiment for revolt moves from the radical, fringe elements and encompasses those in the middle that are typically apolitical. This was as true in the American Revolution of 1776 as I suspect it is today. I, for one, hope that the Tea Party movement serves as a ‘wake-up call’ to an unresponsive Federal government, and that said government will rein itself in. Then again, I have little confidence this will happen, based on history, if nothing else. I would much rather see the country change course courtesy of the ballot box, and not the ammo box.
I think that the federal government is very responsive – to corporate lobbyists and campaign donors. And the Supreme Court has paved the way for corporations to get even more of a response in the next elections. This will perplex the Tea Party even more. Despite all the complaining about welfare and entitlements, the middle class people from whence Tea Party has come have traditionally been beneficiaries of both substantial government job creation, such as the DOD and all the industry behind it, and of cheap energy, subsidized roads, automobiles, suburban development and all the industry behind that. With increasing costs of energy, the decline in employment, and a general lack of growth, they are looking to the government to make things right – as if cutting taxes or stimulus spending can actually make up for a sea change in the global economy.
Why do you keep bringing up The Tea Party followers when they have nothing to do with this argument?
I was responding to Brad's comment about the Tea Party movement. Maybe you should ask him why he keeps bringing them up, eh?
Actually, the Tea Party has nothing to do with reiligon, although most Tea Party people have strong beliefs in God unlike the Flea Party people currently camping out around the country for weeks with taking a bath most Flea Party people’s reiligon is the the left wing of the Demo.party called Communism . take from the haves and give to the have nots
In order for the Second Amendment to mean what you divine, it would have to be written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of militia soldiers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The implication of the Constitution is that the militia is a civilian force. There would have be no such thing as a “militia soldier”, as the militia was not a professional army.
But the framers of the constitution simply did not intend the Second Amendment to restrict (i.e. infringe) on the right to keep and bear arms to those who served in federally regulated militias.
Again, this is where you folks miss the point. The founders were not discussing gun control at all, either way. You’re trying to fit a 21st century square peg of a political question (gun control, to be or not to be) into an 18th century round hole (the need for a militia.)
It is absurd to argue that the Constitution adopts a rigid position on widespread guns proliferation when it doesn’t discuss that subject at all. The founders were focused on meeting their military needs, not on whether weekend warriors get to have their fun.
It’s probably no coincidence that the militia amendment is slotted in the Bill of Rights right next to the prohibition of the quartering of troops. The Second Amendment creates a check and balance to the standing Army, while the Third explicitly constrains the standing Army. The Third is archaic in modern times, but it goes hand-in-hand with the Second.