10-08-2015, 11:19 AM
(10-08-2015, 11:04 AM)F.U. Wrote: Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.
15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
Well, that's one interpretation.
And still, it in no way prohibits the government from determining what types of additional 'arms of their own' would be legally available to the "militia" (which, in the interpretation you posted, equates to everyone in the country).