Will, I think you are operating under a fog. Your argument that the writers of the 2 amendment never argued it was to control slaves is a pretty bad argument. Slavery isn't even mentioned in the Constitution but the document was written with the idea of bending over backwards to keep the slave holders happy. Really, it was a pro-slavery document all the way, yet it never mentions slavery directly. If a document was so pro-slavery--only an extremely ignorant person can deny this--yet tries to hide that fact, then it isn't so far fetched to think that an amendment added to that document inorder to get it ratified could also be for the purpose of protecting slavery. You claiming its "far fetched" to suggest this makes me wonder if you understand how deeply a part of the nations social, economic and political structure slavery was. I mean slavery was the cause of the greatest war this country has ever known. It would be no surprise at all that it was such an overiding concern--yet, an embarassing one-- that they didn't even have to come out and say it openly.

In fact the Virginia militia had been used for just such a purpose when Lord Dunmore called on the slaves to rise up. Surely southerns had not forgotten that and were fearful a federal government could try to impose its will on the slave states. Time and again we saw the south freaking out of slavery. Getting an amendment into the constitution that would guarantee their militia rights to enforce white supremecy is in line with their other requests for the constituion to ensure slavery's place in the nation.