Is the closing statement. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is paramount. Don't tread on it. Unless you are anti American. Or unpatrotic.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Whole people. You and me.
Lets start with the militia first: in colonial times it was all able bodied male adults and I already said what the Federalist Papers said about the right to bear arms. I could care less what the NRA has warped it to mean. I also have no problem with any person of sound mind having guns as long as they aren't military type weapons(AR's, uzi's, etc.) with high capacity magazines or bump stock, etc.
I am as American and patriotic as the next person, but I also look at gun ownership as something that has to be looked at with common sense and what we have now is not even close to making any sense. And because what we have in place now can't keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own them, we need to put in place rules and measures that will do just that. If someone has nothing to hide in a comprehensive background check with a mental check, similar to what Japan does then they will still be able to buy guns.
Since you only used the part of George Mason's comment I will post it's entirety which might bring his comments into a clearer picture:
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.
Later on in the debate Mr. MASON rose, and said that he was totally misunderstood. The contrast between his friend’s objection and his was improper. His friend had mentioned the propriety of having select militia, like those of Great Britain, who should be more thoroughly exercised than the militia at large could possibly be. But he, himself, had not spoken of a selection of militia, but of the exemption of the highest classes of the people from militia service; which would justify apprehensions of severe and ignominious punishments.
You can pick and choose parts of whatever part of history you want to make your point, but when you look at the whole debate it puts much of the 2nd amendment in a different light. First of all the Constitution hadn't been ratified yet, they were still hashing out the details. You also have to realize that this was only Virginia's debate on the Constitution, there were 12 other states that also got together to hash out there questions and hear their comments during their states debates and only after this was done did they gather to ratify the Constitution.
If you want to read the entire debates on the Virginian ratification of the Constitution you can find it here.
eachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june16/
