: it isnt, and you missed two sections (below) which contradict your position and are key to the amednment
Being seriously overweight, my wife shall go on a diet.
Being flush at the moment, I shall buy you a drink.
My point is, exactly, that teh right to bear arms is conditional upon teh existence of militias, it does not mention self defence, and cannot be supposed to include self-defence. I am not saying that membership of a militia is the condition for gun ownership, but rather, it was felt, in typical radical manner, that the population should hold arms, so they could form militias, to defend the state.
: The original language of the Second Amendment as proposed by Madison, read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security to a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
1:Thats not how it came out in the end, it was changed for a reason.
2:The final clause referring to conscientious objection clearly places the matter wholly in a public realm of civilian defnce.
3:No-where does it mention self-defence or personal use.
: Its also interesting to consider the various articles in the state pre-union; ALABAMA: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Ala. Const. art. I, S 26. ARIZONA: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Ariz. Const. art. 2, S 26. DELAWARE: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." Del. Const. art. I, S 20.
1:The final article does not contain those forms of rference, we can actually, assume, then, that the above are explcitly excluded, or dropped from the federal constitution (possibly considered a local matter).
My point is that a statnding army and this Article are in conflict, and that the right to bear arms is predicated upon an understanding of an armed populace so as to defend the comunity.
: There are others, some are restrictive about concealed weapons, most are excplicit about self defence