Sure I am a dumb animal.

It is my opinion that the concept of the Second Amendment has been taken out of context and has gone far from what the Founding Fathers originally intended, which I believe was a military system like that of Switzerland where there is a small regular army (professional soldiers) and the universal militia (citizen soldiers, amateur soldiers, part time soldiers, etc.). Proof for this is in the debates and the text of the Constitution where the Federal government has its army and the states the militia. Additionally, there was a great deal of discussion of the evils of a standing army during the debates. Unfortunately, this has been lost in most of the current debates, or the Second Amendment would truly be embarrassing. How many people wish to argue that a Swiss style militia should replace the system we have now of a large standing military?

So, I am an extreme collective rights dog in that I believe there is nothing in the Second Amendment which precludes the banning of individual firearms if the ownership has no basis to an actual Swiss style system. Even in a Swiss style system, private firearms ownership could be strictly regulated if there is no legitimate connection to militia service.

The historical arguments are smoke screens as most people did not own firearms. I think that Michael Bellesisles made some good points in his book which are backed up by Historical facts. The basic one of these being that firearms were luxuries in the preindustrial revolution times (that is standard precision parts). Additionally, there are many instances where firearms at the time of the revolution were non-existent and people trained with sticks.

For the most part, people who lived on the frontier lived peaceful farming existences and didn't really need guns. Well, Didn't they hunt for food as people have done through the ages? That's rubbish. Hunting was the right of the nobility, not the common person. The Commoner has always relied on farming to supply food. In fact, there is a difference between hunting and farming societies in that hunters are nomads and farmers are settled. But the average American has this myth of the rugged, individualist frontiersman which couldn't be further from the truth.  Most of them would have starved to death had that have been the truth.

As for armed self-defence explain away the Deerfield Massacre (1704) , The Chenoweth Massacre (1789), The 1752 Raid on Pickawillany, just to name a few. The farming settlers were pretty much unarmed. Even Daniel Shays who was a Revolutionary War vet had to raid the arsenal at Springfield to arm his band during his ill-fated rebellion.

So, I don't really care for this "recent scholarship".  As any good lawyer knows, stare decisis keeps the collective rights as the "correct" version of the doctrine relating to the Second Amendment, which means I am right and you are wrong.   Any "new" or "recent" scholarship is so much bumpf and, as such only, good for picking up my poop from the street.  Short of a good policy reason leading to implementation of an individual rights theory becoming the legal doctrine, it is as valid as a geocentric theory of the universe--which of course was once commonly accepted by experts.

One Jurist on my side is Sam Alito!  

So keep pushing NRA and other RKBA Morons (you don't even understand what that really means), I am betting on you to bring about the gun ban.