based on context, this is presumably in Georgia in the mid-to-late 1700s.

That is certainly one aspect of modern gun control discussion, but not the primary focus. This line of argument is in response to gun advocates often omitting the words, "A well regulated militia being necessary..." in their claims and argumentation.

The contention is that the words "well regulated militia" are meaningless, which is surprising given the terseness of the document over all and the care with which it is written. Alternately, the meaning of the phrase is inconvenient for "gun rights" argument so some attempt to simply erase it.

How you can tell this article was written by someone who knows nothing about firearms. 🤦‍♂️

Once again, looking at things today, a good question for H.S. discussions = can the national government mobilize state reserve units today and, if so, can you find an example from the news or recent history?

An additional question, which also vexed the founders, = if the national government can call forth the militias - does that run the risk of militias being "morphed" into a standing army.

A kind of intriguing insight here might be what happened at Tiannamen square a few years ago. The first time the troops were sent in, they refused to crush the protesters violently, at least partially due to the fact that there were people among the demonstrators that the troops knew personally, or knew their parents and families. The subsequent troops were "imported" from more distant provinces, and of course, violent repression ensued. I regret that I do not have proper documentation of this phenomenon, merely my recollection of the events & my readings as things were happening in real time. I provide them, because I would be likely to share those remarks with students in the context of this reading and / or discussions of militias, standing armies , the use of Hessian mercenaries by the British during the revolution, etc, etc. I also like to point this out (among other things) when discussing Shay's rebellion.

Within the collective vs. individual right debate is the issue of just what constitutes a militia. If one relies upon "originalism" then the definition of a militia during the founder's era would provide a useful insight.

Suggested resource to investigate that question = The Militia Act of 1792 to be found at "A Century of Lawmaking for the New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents & Debates 1774 - 1875 ----Statutes at Large, 2nd Congress, 1st Session (Ch. 33) "every citizen so enrolled . . . provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet, . . . ."

Ammon Bundy's anti-federalism is rooted in religious extremism. He is a fundamentalist Mormon.

This other article is about separate men, but gives some insight into that kind of mindset. It includes a statement from the Church of Latter Day Saints that "strongly condemns" the Bundys' actions.

If anything is clear-cut about Indians in the Constitution, it is that relations with Indian nations are a federal responsibility. Carrying out that responsibility in Oregon, President U.S. Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872. It is no coincidence that the historical reservation shares a name with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, site of the current armed standoff.

White settlement nibbled at the Maiheur Indian Reservation until the Bannock War in 1878, which ended with surrendered Paiutes and Bannocks on the reservation being removed, officially to the Yakama Reservation in Washington Territory. Unofficially, Paiutes had scattered all over the Western States that comprised their aboriginal lands. The Burns Paiute Reservation is the remains of the Malheur Reservation and the Maiheur Wildlife Refuge is an alternative use for the federal land, for those who believe the federal government exists.

I haven't looked into this. Is Malheur Wildlife Refuge or any of the other disputed federal land part of an Indian reservation?

In 2014, there was a confrontation between the federal government and supporters of Cliven Bundy over the use of federal land near his Nevada ranch. They briefly seized his cattle, then gave them back to avoid violence.

Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steve were convicted of federal arson charges for fires they set on federal land in 2001 and 2006. The judge sentenced them to a few months in jail, which they served. The US attorney appealed the sentences, and they were extended to five years, which was supposed to be the mandatory minimum. (This sounds like double jeopardy to me.)

The ranchers marched in protest. Then Saturday night, "dozens" of them, led by Cliven's son Ammon Bundy, seized a building at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near the Hammond ranch in southeast Oregon. They are demanding the release of the Hammonds, and that the government cede the land to local control.

A lot of people on Twitter are asking why this isn't being called terrorism. (Funny hashtags: #YallQaeda #Yeehawdi #VanillaISIS) No one has been hurt yet, but they are certainly creating great risk of violence, and they have said that they are willing to die.

The Hammonds' hometown of Burns, OR has been tense for a while. The sheriff has received death threats. The residents are not happy about armed men showing up in their town to protest.