Guns, Waiting Periods and Anger

OH, and speaking of absurd arguments. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the guns were muzzle loaded matchlocks. Even the Colt revolver and repeating rifle came half a century later. Glocks and AR-16's?

Or that the Founders never intended the Constitition to be altered.

The truth is, many Americans before, during and after the Revolutionary war, had the best, modern military rifles you could buy. In fact often the guns carried by the Minute Men, who were American civilians, were superior to those of the British army. The British used the smooth bore Brown Bess and the Americans had the "Kentucky" longrifle, which was much more accurate.
So the argument could be made that the founders believed in being able to own rifles that are as good as the military has.

Next you are going to tell me that freedom of speech or freedom of the press doesn't apply to the internet because the internet didn't exist in 1791. It's the same logic.

And in writings like the Federalist Papers we can get very clear insight into what they were thinking about the principles, such as, for example, what the "militia" is and what its purpose is.

Conveniently forgetting that the Federalist Papers were opinions and propositions written by a select few of the founding fathers, in order to persuade others. Where such views were not incorporated into the Constitution, it may have been because those others did not agree.

Lots of stuff in the federalist papers didn't make it in to the constitution. Just read them both. In any case it doesn't matter what the federalist papers say.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

etc etc etc

If you are looking for more lulz, may I suggest reading Richard Jensen's (madbolter1) dissertation. Divine command theory... bahahahaaaaaaaaa.