It was, those three words aren't there by mistake.

Standing domestic armies were controversial at the time. They needed a way if a state was a facing a crisis it could grab a bunch of armed citizens, declare it a militia, and deal with the issue. Most of the signers were lawyers and they knew that there had to be a legally established procedure for this.

This is me being nice to them btw the issue was slavery and the fear of slave revolts.

And a few decades ago it got reimagined as a civil liberty. Which is clear from the text that it is not and is clear from the debates around the amendment at the time.

Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It's why professional soldiers were called "Regulars." They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.

In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.

Somebody who doesn't have a gun and has never used one isn't going to be effective in civil defense.

He's trying to re-write history and every academically and officially accepted interpretation of the constitution because he doesn't like it.

You'll only see ridiculousness like his taken seriously on forums like these.

It's all through the book. I also have a copy on my bookshelf and have read it.

I guess to be clear, I'm not referring to America alone in my response and even though his observations were largely on America what he writes about can be applied generally.

One simple example is how he states something like "I don't know if America would vote the best people if they ran for office. We know they exist but they clearly don't enter politics."

It's an extremely polite way to say "we aren't getting the best or brightest running for office but that's ok cause we're so fucking dumb we probably wouldn't vote for them anyways."