I'm not disagreeing with your point, so please don't take it that way.
"Well-regulated" at the time didn't have quite the same connotations as we assign it today. In short, well-regulated meant that it was ready and capable to do it's duty. Specifically, that it would be appropriately armed to stand against a threat. This understanding is precisely why it is understood that arms capable of reasonable management by an individual are protected, but those that aren't (mortars, nukes, tanks, etc) are not.
Anti-gun lobbyists try to twist the meaning into "well-controlled" by assigning today's typical use to an older document that didn't use the language quite the same, which completely misses the point.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, so please don't take it that way.
"Well-regulated" at the time didn't have quite the same connotations as we assign it today. In short, well-regulated meant that it was ready and capable to do it's duty. Specifically, that it would be appropriately armed to stand against a threat. This understanding is precisely why it is understood that arms capable of reasonable management by an individual are protected, but those that aren't (mortars, nukes, tanks, etc) are not.
Anti-gun lobbyists try to twist the meaning into "well-controlled" by assigning today's typical use to an older document that didn't use the language quite the same, which completely misses the point.