(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.
> I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim.
> Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it.
I'm not responsible for the failures of your knowledge. These claims are both quite obvious, if -- as I specified above -- you take the time to read the things that this set of people said and wrote at the time.
Here's a letter from George Washington in which he contrasts an "irregular and disjointed militia" with a "well regulated militia": https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-...
> The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this province, makes it necessary for me to inform you, that unless a Law is passed by your Legislature to reduce them to some order, and oblige them to turn out in a different Manner from what they have hitherto done, we shall bring very few into the Feild, and even those few, will render little or no Service.
> your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner, and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants.
Here's a speech by George Clinton from 1798, in which, instead of referring to a "well regulated militia", he refers to a "well organized militia": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d...
> The means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier.
Note that this is not at all an unexpected meaning for the word "regulated" to have. "Regulation" as in command is related to "rule" as in rulership. "Regulation" as in correct operation is related to "rule" as in the straight line drawn by a... "ruler".
It had that meaning a thousand years ago. Nah, 2000 years ago ("regula"). You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. And without any evidence. The rest of what you quote supports my interpretation, not yours, which is just weird.
