A question for this group--

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. "...the right to "have arms" embodied in the English Declaration of Rights...

...did not intend to protect an individual’s right..."

You seem to miss the point that having a law protecting a right which names a purpose for that protection which explains a government's nexus for making said law doesn't negate other common lawful uses of the right.

It is the same with the 2A. The federalists wanted a national government with a purview of unifying the sovereign states with common interests. Many of the people wanted a delineation of and protections for the rights of the people. That there is A reason for a law named in the law can not be enforced as a limitation of the innate human right of self-defense.

If you want to argue for some collective rights intention for the 2A, please site an authority contemporary to the Founders sharing, in explicit terms, that exact position.

Did the EDoR intend to protect the individual right? I don't know and neither do I care. It is clear that self-defense is valid lawful use of force. Taking the position that self-defense is just using only weapons less efficacious than those in common use by criminals is rather disgusting and Constitutionally offensive.