and wasn't based on history or constitutional law.
Nixon wanted to ban handguns, but feared that the gun owners would send the Republican party in the wilderness.

If you are going to write a book on the re writing of the Second Amendment, you could at least use the actual Second Amendment in it.

"The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wrong. The final version of the Second Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement". Especially the ones who notice that there is only one comma in the actual final ratified version.

the comma placement is the same as presented here

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html

Both links you posted go to pages with the text of the "enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C." not the final version of the Second Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

The quoted text is from the bottom of the first page you linked to. You should try reading the pages you link to if you are going for a "gotcha!" post.

For instance, on the Cornell Law Constitution page, click "2nd Amendment" at the bottom then you see the extra-comma version. However if you click "Amendment II", the annotated version has the version without the extra comma.

The Govt Printing Office publication "Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition" has the version without the extra comma.

The US Senate online copy of the Constitution has the extra comma in the 2nd amendment. And the National Constitution Center also has the extra comma. Am I missing something here?

Even you are calling it an "extra" comma!

Thank you for agreeing with me that Waldman, like many people, confused the original proposed language of the Second Amendment (which has two, or three, or sometimes four commas!) with the ratified, authenticated law of the land - which only has one.

I'm surprised how many sources cite the proposed version instead of the authentic one! At least the Government Printing Office gets it right.

For more than you ever wanted to know about the Second Amendment and commas, for your search term use:

the second amendment comma

I'll cherry pick a couple of links to get you started.

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/commas-and-original-version-of-second.html

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

concluding: " So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation. "

Hmm. I wonder why the sites like USConstitution.net and National Constitution Center use the original proposed version of 2nd amendment with the extra comma, instead of the final ratified version without the extra comma?

I wonder why Waldman wrote an entire book about a version of the Second Amendment which isn't even the actual text.

I couldn't say why USConstitution.net or the Constitution Center use the version they chose. Why don't you ask them?

I also can't say why anyone would claim that slight variations in punctuation should not have any bearing on the documents interpretation. Commas are important!

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

which itself preceded the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where the anti-federalists fit into this argument as their side of the argument was resolved well before the BoR was written.

It should be pointed out that if we accept, solely for the sake of argument, the idea that the 2A was only for the purpose of arming the militia the 2A still stands as pro-RKBA advocates assert. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so as to allow the militia to secure a free state."

The militia was understood to be males 17 to 45 (and still is). Yet, in those days the purchase of firearms was not restricted to males 17 to 45. The right has always belonged to the people (except slaves; hint, hint).

The article also relies on strawmen, i.e. claiming pro-RKBA advocates seek "unfettered access." I invite the author or any agreeing with him to find those petitioning to allow those adjudicated to be violent criminals to be allowed unfettered access.

but c'mon. It's undeniable that guns do cause death.

let's not also forget that the Democratic Party platform recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

hack: let's not also forget that the Democratic Party platform recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms

Let's not forget that the 4 liberal democrat justices ruled for the militia right interpretation in heller2008, mcd too.

hack: So why did the founders write an individual RKBA into many state constitutions?

The predominance focused on the miitia centric point of view; note: 'Madison brigade' is progun, but can't hide truth.

Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights (+ arms rights) prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm#LEGISLATION

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA (September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA (December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT (July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …

MASSACHUSETTS (October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION (Dec 12, 1787) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION (Feb 6, 1788) And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION (June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION (June 27, 1788) 17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to lib..

NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 7,1788) That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 26,1788) That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION (May 29, 1790) XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

If they were all about the militia they would read "the right to bear arms is restricted to militia service." But they don't.

how could a militia, seeing as they provided their own arms, have defended a free state if the Prohis had their way?

"Ah, McTaggert, glad to have you join our ranks. Now, assuming you filed your paperwork in time to satisfy the 30-day waiting period, have passed the third-generation background check and psychological health evaluation -- as certified by The National Association of Neurotic Anti-Gun Psychologists Who Live in Gated Communities -- and paid your $10 per musket ball tax, we need you to report to Bunker Hill forthwith. Matters are rather dicey at the moment, I'm afraid."

hack: they are "people have the right" centric.

You don't understand what 'militia centric' means.

If they were all about the militia they would read "the right to bear arms is restricted to militia service." But they don't.

Reread the militia clause, in the vernacular of the day it was pretty much what you write above;
If FF & Madison had intended an individual right disconnected from militia service (as scalia ruled it), they would have simply written:

The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

But they didn't. They included the militia clause.

totally irrelevant to America right now. The obstacle to the gun control you desire is not legal - it is purely political. Even if the 2A was to disappear tomorrow, constitutions and legislation at the state level will ensure that nothing changes significantly.

Convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms; persons convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns, persons adjudicated mentally ill, through due process of law, are prohibited from owning firearms. Persons under 21 are not able to purchase handguns. Many locations are legally "gun free zones". Quite clearly there are numerous regulations regarding ownership if firearms. When the author starts from a false premise it's hard to take the rest of what he has to say seriously.

As there are numerous regulations in place this premise is false on it's face.

How do modern gun laws make that premise false?

And in opposition to what the founders intended. Again, firearm ownership is heavily regulated; therefore, not in opposition to what the founders were believed to have intended.

The article is specifically about the NRA creating a revisionist version of the 2nd amendment, not Waldman's own insights into the history of 2nd amendment.

"The founders never intended for the public to own firearms unrelated to membership in the militia" or some such. Sorry, but his first sentence is intended to convey the image that firearms ownership is unregulated. Please note the recent court ruling regarding firearms registration in DC which does nothing to prohibit ownership and was therefore upheld. The previous rulings made firearm ownership so cumbersome (firearm unloaded and locked up, ammunition locked up in a separate location) that possession of a firearm in one's home for self defense purposes was essentially impossible and was therefore struck down as unconstitutional.

I think they didn't want the issue addressed as it did not suit their political agenda.

The false premise is a perversion of the true statement that "The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun" through the 2nd Amendment . . .

The Amendment does not create, grant, give or otherwise establish the right, thus the right is in no manner dependent upon the words and structure (including the commas) of the 2nd Amendment to exist. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming that principle for going on 140 years.

The right does not exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says; the right exists and is possessed by the individual because no power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. The (federally) "unregulated individual right" is a product of the silence of the Constitution granting powers to the federal government to regulate private arms, not any inventive misreading / misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The theory that the 2nd Amendment should be read to discern what the government allows the citizen to own and do, is the ridiculous 20th century invention.

is a living, breathing document until you disagree and then you become a strict constructionist and vice versa

This statement here:

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.