@Dark_Ansem - Slight Issue: It is a Amendment in the Constitution, and says , "...the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE...". It does not say only Military.
Let's look at when it was put in place -
1 - It took a few Years, and also, it had a few different Versions. So yes, they had to have discussed Weapons getting Advanced, and also the possibilities of, "What if" scenarios. Examples being, what if the Government uses a standing Army against The People, or what if the Government goes against the People, like, for examples,
Turkey 1915-1917,
Soviet Union 1929-1953.
Germany 1939-1945,
China 1948-1952,
Guatemala 1964-1981,
Uganda 1971-1979,
Cambodia 1975-1977,
Seems when Gun Control is Established, lots of Defenseless People end up getting rounded up, and either Imprisoned, or Mass Murdered just because they are a different Race, Religion, or they Disagree with the Government.
----Plus, Ukraine is a perfect example.
2 - At the time the 2nd was being put into the Constitution, they had just fought against England. England was trying to Demand everyone here go by their Rules, Pay Taxes for them, do as they say, and trying to strip everyone of Arms. Apparently also claiming that those here were Weak, unable to Cope with so formidable a adversary ("Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death", Patrick Henry 1775 Speech). Kind of sound familiar with Biden and others claiming we cannot win against a bad guy with a Gun or against Tyranny.
3 - The Founders wanted to make sure, The People would remain in Control, and if needed, could be able to keep the Government in Check, and if needed, be able to also fight back against Threats, whether they be Foreign or Domestic Threats.
----Again, look at Ukraine.
4 - Text of the 2A as it meant back then. NOT what those want it to be with their Redefining of Words to meet their Views or Agenda.
== A Well Regulated - Meant Well Supplied, Well Prepared, Ready if ever they need to Act.
== Militia - They knew a Standing Army could be used against The People. Also, who fought against England? The People. WE were the Militia. WE are supposed to make sure the Government is kept in check. To keep it a Country of the People, by the People, for the People.
== Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State - There was no National Guard back then, and, again, they knew a Standing Army could be used against The People. So they wanted to make sure that WE THE PEOPLE can make sure we keep our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, and whoever wants to go against The People of this Land, our Rights and Freedoms, would not be successful, because we would be able to Fight Back.
== The Right - Not Privilege, not requiring Permission.
== Of The People - Does not say The Wealthy, does not say Military, does not say Government, only certain People, says THE PEOPLE. There are even those claiming the 2A is not meant for those who are less fortunate, but only for The Wealthy.
== To Keep and Bear Arms - Does not mean only certain Arms, does not mean only Weapons that look like the ones the Military uses, does not mean only what they had when the 2A was Written. It says Arms. Also, Purchasing makes it so you can Keep and Bear Arms, and for the forseable argument, yes that includes Ammunition, because if you dont have Ammunition, then how can you use a Firearm except to swing at someone???? Besides, for those that thing, just man up and fight back, if there are more than 1 Criminal, and if they are Armed, how are you going to fight off a Bullet????
--Also, please, do tell me how someone with a Criminal Record, is able to magically Pass a Background Check?
--According to the FBI or ATF (I forgot which, but I looked it up a while ago), you can not go from 1 State, into another State to Purchase a Firearm due to that State having less restrictive Laws. Only way you can do that, is if you are actively Living in that State at that time, and you have Residency.
++++Yes, there are States that allow it, but you still have to Pass not only that State's Requirements, but also your Home State's Requirements. But if a Dealer Violates that, then go after the Dealer, not The People's Rights.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99
== Shall Not Be Infringed - Meaning you can not make it so those Less Fortunate cannot Afford to Exercise the Right, or make it so they cannot meet certain Requirements, make Limits to how many they can have, or which Firearms they can have, or Punish the Everyday Law Abiding for the Acts of Criminals or those who have Mental Issues.
Please, actually watch Videos
Also, should Note Murdock vs. Pennsylvania (1943). Dealt with a separate Constitutional Right, but the Conclusions alone apply to other Constitutional Rights.
"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania
+++So actually, trying to make it so only the Wealthy can Afford to Exercise a Right can not only be seen as Discriminating, but also going against the Majority of the Population of The People.
Also reference Title 18 United States Code, Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color Of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
---If certain Conditions are met, Title 18 United States Code, Section 241 can be Applied as well
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.
Also, should know, that apparently there are 2 Bills (House Bill 6981 and Senate Bill 3589) that will Ban Militias, and not sure, but apparently make it so People cannot assist Law Enforcement OR Military if ever something happens.
=== I did not watch the Video, but saw a Video Preview that was Listed showing Body Cam/Dash Cam Footage of a Police Officer under Attack by a Criminal, and a Armed Civilian came to Assist the Officer. I think it also said the Officer was Injured. So if those Bills do have it to where People cannot Aid Law Enforcement, what......just let that Officer Die, dont do anything???? If something happens and the Military is overwhelmed, just let it happen, the People wont be allowed to do anything about it, whatever the situation is??????
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen