This conversation was had, and settled, in 1789-1791. That may be unacceptable for some, but our Rights are not up for a vote, nor are they negotiable. The problem in Europe is those peoples have been mere subjects of their governments for centuries, whether a monarch, parliamentary body, or military dictator. It is that form of government to which they've become accustomed.
This is long, but thorough, and I think that's a good thing when discussing matters like these among people willing to listen and speak rather than shout, and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute and beg your patience as I try and explain the Second Amendment. It may take several posts.
If one believes in the self-evident truth that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,” then it logically follows that one also has the Right to defend that Life, whether the threat comes from one person, a group of people, a government, or society at large. If one does not believe all men equal or equally entitled to the Right to Life, then therein lies the problem.
Since the founding of the Republic, the most effective means of defending one’s life has been firearms. It is the great equalizer in physical combat, as it allows the weak to stand against the strong on equal footing. It is the very implement which separates the Citizen from the subject, the free man (or woman) from the oppressed.
In the simplest terms, an armed populace cannot be forced or coerced against their will; they must be convinced. Any population properly trained and sufficiently armed, along with the willingness to use both are an effective check against abused power....be it by a central government, a local despot, a criminal element, or an angry mob. It's not so much that arms protect the Constitution (though in the case of these United States, that remains true) so much as arms protect the People from abuse of power by those whom intend to rule rather than govern.
There is a "collective right" argument out there, that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "the militia," which is erroneous assumed to be solely the National Guard. This “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment is folly, as it would be the only Right of those enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be so (save for perhaps the 10th Amendment, but that's a discussion about federalism itself, rather than Arms). But for the sake of argument, let us assume it protects the Rights of the militia alone to Arms.
So who are the militia? Who were they when the Amendment was written? Who are they now?
Writing for the Pennsylvania Gazette in in February of 1788 while the Constitution was being debated, Tench Coxe (an outspoken Antifederalist) said the following:
“The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.” and “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.”
Patrick Henry agrees: “Under every government the [last] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.”
Even Sam Adams weighed in: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
So that’s who the militia were then, which provides a background for original intent.
Who is the militia now?
According to 10 U.S. Code § 311,the militia is defined thusly:
Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
So even if one accepts that militia is the operative word of the Amendment, then it still means all able-bodied males 17 to 45 have a Right to Arms that cannot be infringed. This is further extended to women by way of the 14th Amendment, which also binds the States to the same protections. So Heller finally got it right, for the most part.
Madison explicitly states in Federalist No. 46:
“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”
Therein Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, many of the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights presents the case of a federal government raising a standing army and turning it against the States and the People, respectively, and the rightful remedy of both being a contest of Arms with that federal army. He even goes so far as to argue that the armed population of America cannot be conquered as easily or quietly as the peoples of Europe. This is the case for the individual Right to Arms, which can be exercised collectively by the People as a check against tyranny.
I won't deny that the Founders desired we work things out through the electoral process, but I would argue that they safeguarded the Right of the people to solve it by other means if it became necessary.