Re: How do we protect our 2nd amendment & our kids at the same time?
Can you provide evidence to support your second assertion that a militia, under the definition in use at the time, was "privately organized and maintained by the people, not the state"
In the UK (at the time) the militia was somewhat akin to the modern US National Guard or the UK Territorial Army - ie part-time soldiers who were trained and could be called up if needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_Kingdom)
The US militia of the time were slightly different - all able-bodied men were supposed to be available for militia duties. And the important point is thet they were organised paramilitary (and military) units - not loners with a gun.
Remember people - historical context is important when trying to work out what an historical document means..
As an example - look at the Militia Act of 1792 - it sets up that all free white males shall be enrolled in a militia under the control of a captain.. And that act was enacted when the 2nd amendment was drafted and accepted so it seems entirely reasonable to tie the two together.
So - looking at the historical context (as an outsider) it's fairly clear that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide an armed populace *as part of a state or federally-controlled* conscript army in order to protect each state from threats to life.
it was *not* designed to ensure that people, uncontrolled by State or Federal control could carry as many guns as they could afford.
There were private militias (just like there were private militia regiments in the UK) but they were swept into the State (and later Federal) structure after the Revolutionary War.
And yes, you did get private militias in the US Civil War but then that's also happened in pretty much every was since the Peninsula War (which is why we call it Gurilla War (speeling?) - it's from the Spanish for 'little war' where Spanish irregular troops fought against the invading French.
Someone on Ars Technica made a very good point - in a US civil war today there are two scenrios:
1. The US Army (or large portion thereof) sides with the rebels and thus the rebels win since the army firepower is so much greater than any ragtag civilian militia
2. The US Army opposes the militia - in which case the militia dies fairly quickly and all goes quiet again.
So the purported purpose 'to oppose a tyrannical government' has already failed because any conflict between a militia and the government will be settled very quickly by the army and the choice they make.