This sounds completely contrary to what in practice every government on Earth does. Of course the State can arm their agents, if they want to - you don't need to specially mention it as a fundamental right, as you don't need to specially mention they are allowed to breathe or eat - that's how it always happens. What doesn't always happen and needs special protection - is the right of the citizens which are not government agents, and thus the government - which always has a lot of armed people in their employ - can easily walk all over them. To mitigate it somewhat was the exact purpose of the Bill of Rights.
However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."
For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.
I'm saying that the second-amendment-means-collective-rights people are not concerned with what the second amendment said or with what it was meant to do. I am saying that their concern is preventing people from having guns, and their criteria for making an argument are, first, can this argument be used to prevent people from having guns, and, second, can it be connected -- however tenuously -- to the raw text of the second amendment. The goal is repeal-through-motivated-interpretation.
(Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...)
Further, its not at all clear to me that carrying permits have anything to do with the constitutional amendment. The discussion at the time and the amendment itself refer to national defense, both from external and internal threats to the nation, not "bring a gun with me to the store" (concealed/open carry), which I think is what makes many people uncomfortable.
Many other countries have regulations of this form, that you have to purchase safety equipment and the government can audit you to ensure that you are safely storing your firearms. This gets people concerned about the government seizing your guns, but I don't think those concerns are realistic (assume the gov decides to do that one day, does having a national gun registry and your gun in a safe make things look any different than the police going door to door with a swat team and searching the house)? I don't think it does.
[0]: Eventually. this would take a generation or two
I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You see, I'm French (as hinted by the mis-autocorrect of "too"), and "regulated" (well, "régulé") means the same in contemporary French as in contemporary English. And the meaning comes straight from Latin (regula: rule, law), probably by way of 1066 like most legal terms.
The notion that "regulate" means anything but regulate IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT of all places is thus ridiculous. Or at the very least utterly implausible. But maybe you're right; I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim.
> Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...
Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. In any case nothing in that wording even hints at that.
