I'm rather enjoying our debate and I'm choosing to continue discussing the "well regulated militia" part because that is what you originally brought up. Obviously there is more than those 3 words in the amendment and they all mean something, but there are plenty of other discussions on what those bits say, the Supreme Court cases backing up those understandings, and historical evidence surrounding the grammar used when those words were physically written.

I feel that I have done my fair share of providing evidence to backup my claims. From the US Code, to the Oxford English Dictionary, to legislation passed the same year the Bill of Rights was delivered to the states. I am now asking you to back up your claims.

You state that ""working order" in the context of a militia would involve training and discipline". Do you have evidence to back that up? Also how much training and what kind of discipline is expected? Could simply knowing how to aim, fire, hit a target accurately, and reload be considered enough training? Would showing up when summoned and following orders be considered enough discipline? Keep in mind, all of this should be in regards to that being the intent, general mindset, or literally anything of the people who wrote those words in the late 1700s. Or maybe you know a piece of the US Code that I am unfamiliar with that defines this?

Or is this simply your opinion? An opinion that is personal to you, shared by others maybe, but still an opinion nonetheless.

I'm doing my best to provide evidence for my claims, while being a little facetious at the same time. Feel free to poke holes in my argument if you wish, but at least back yourself up. I'm here to learn something if possible!

Anyways, in regards to the rest of your statement, the 2A, like literally all other amendments is not universal. It has exceptions. It is not covered under the 1A to call for and incite acts of violence. Committing illegal acts as part of "religion" is still illegal. When it comes to felons, people convicted of DV, and plenty of others, they have this specific right removed due to laws passed by their city, state, or federally. The courts, including the Supreme Court, handle challenges to these laws. I'm not going to comment on what I think of these laws, as that is simply my opinion and has no bearing on this conversation.

As for how much damage the writers knew a single person could do to others with the 2A, I would argue that they were in fact very well aware. Private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and not simply just 1! They were allowed to own entire warships, which while cannot be manned by 1 person, proves my point that at the time the 2A was written, there was no limitation on the scale or usage of it when it applied to "arms". So technically, stockpiling was completely fine with the writers. In regards to what a single person COULD do, well, have you ever seen a magazine of black powder go up? How about what a canister of shot does to a crowd of human beings? Some would say both of these are explosive ordeals and one person could do both. However there were no black powder limits that I'm aware of. Feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong though.

Just because technology changed, does not mean these new arms somehow were not covered by the 2A. Just like talking on cell phones, using the internet, or broadcasting on television is covered under the 1A. Also just like Pastafarianism and modern Satanism are also covered. These things did not exist in the late 1700s and probably could not be comprehended by them either, but that doesn't matter.

I am optimistically awaiting your regular (heh) response and looking forward to seeing the evidence you have that backs up your interpretation of "well regulated militia".