So I'm going to quote you again since you obviously didn't remember what you said.
Seems like you did mention military there. My point still accurately stands. The US is the largest exporter of firearms in the world, both in the military and civilian sectors. It is lunacy to think that many of those civilian guns do not go to civilians in other countries and that many of those military guns do not wind up in civilian hands. We are the largest contributor to the problem.
Of course I mentioned military -- it's kind of hard to point out that you dragged the military into a subject that didn't include it without using the word.
If you're going down that route, then it excludes all of today's modern firearms and applies on to muzzle loaded muskets and sidearms. Also, since there wasn't a standing army when the Constitution was written, one could argue that a) we cannot have a standing military or b) the standing military satisfies the requirement for a well-regulated militia and thus no personal firearm ownership is needed. The right of all arms is being addressed by the amendment, which is why no specific arms were mentioned. And that right is dictated by the need for a well-regulated militia. If the need for a well-regulated militia is no longer there, then that right is no longer needed. That is the whole purpose in adding the first half of the second amendment.
No, it doesn't. I'll try again: the Second Amendment means the standard weapons of the common soldier. That means -- to go worldwide -- something like the AK-47, a 9mm sidearm, and a knife. Or are you seriously claiming that the Founding Fathers and the Framers were so dim that they didn't realize there would be advances in weaponry (which they had witnessed in their lifetimes!)?
One thing is certain, that they weren't so dim as to confuse a standing army with the militia; they believed that the militia was the proper counter to the standing army, which they saw as an instrument of tyranny. They knew the difference between the general militia, an organized or formal militia, and a standing army -- for that matter, so does US law, which makes clear that the standing army is NOT militia, and that the National Guard is formal militia up to the point when it is called up by the federal government, at which point it ceases to be militia. Just read the writings of the time, and you'll see that they held that the mere existence of a standing army was sufficient cause for the citizenry to be active and training and well-armed (part of being well-regulated) and on the alert.
Again, can you name a politician that has advocated for or introduced legislation to take away all firearms? You're arguing a position that no politician has taken. Yes, if you want to pass legislation, you're going to get support for that legislation from anyone who is willing to give it. That doesn't mean you are accepting their whole platform as your own. There is a large cross-section of people who support better regulations for firearms and they represent a wide range of views. You're choosing the most extreme view and saying that any action taken at all will lead to that end result. That is a slippery slope and it is a logical fallacy.
Advocated for legislation? Of course not -- they're not fools. But every one of them who is pals with the likes of the Brady campaign (or whatever they call themselves these days) is aiming at disarmament of "mister and misses America".
George Washington didn't write the Constitution. There have been MANY literary works written in regards to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, some in favor and some opposed. The Supreme Court has ruled (and obviously taken well-regulated to mean) that there can be restrictions on firearm sales and regulations put on their use and their possession. In fact, other than straight up across-the-board bans, they have upheld almost every regulation passed, including the previous ban on assault rifles both federally and in various states.
George Washington was commander of the combined militias of the colonies. If anyone knew what the term meant, he did. Since he wrote in those terms to the Continental Congress, he knew that they understood it in the same way he did.
As for regulations, now that the Court has finally gotten around to tackling the Second head on, they're affirming exactly what numerous decisions before have set out: that the right to keep and bear arms is individual, that it applies in private and public, that its exercise cannot be made burdensome, and most importantly that its being a right supersedes any detrimental effects.
