Thank you.
_____

Close, but no cigar. First of all, The Federalist is not law, and its provenance otherwise makes it irrelevant to the issue of intent. For intent we go not to extra-congressional private opinion, or the biased extra-congressional advertising campaign that was the "Federalist" papers, but rather to the debates of that which became the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, in CONGRESS: the legislativ history, which IS legal authority.
_____

Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, made it clear that militia was the goal. He did mean that individuals would have military weapons at home, but his emphasis was on the "regulated" point, by which he meant well-trained. He suggested a annual national training day, or bi-annual, for a people's militia. We have that, in our state-controlled National Guard untis.
_____

"Regulated" is only tangentially about "training"; see US Con. Art. I. S. 8, C. 16, which stipulates that the states' militias will be armed, and trained, etc., in accordance with the "discipline" prescribed by CONGRESS. And in what form does CONGRESS "prescribe"? In the form of LAW.

The "Militia Act" is that law; and it includes everything and the kitchen sink, including PENALTIES for those who fail to show for duty.

I also gives fine detail on the nature of the equipment required, and the specifics of weapons. But none of that was especially new -- and one needn't go to Endloand to determine the law in the colonies/provines: militia acts had existed since the establishment of the first stable colony, New Plimoth. Exactly as had gun control laws since the advent of guns, primarily to establish security in gov't and laws -- prevent violent overthrow of the civil gov't -- and protect public safety.
_____

A good clue to intent and also to the expected effect of the amendment is that it does not say "weapons" but "arms". It implicitly excludes heavy armaments like cannon, or armed ships. It only mentions what are personal arms.
_____

Again, irrelevant. Read ALL provisions in the Constitution concerning militia; and the Militia Act/Title 10. And, read you state's constitutional provisions on point, and its Militia Act/National Guard act.
_____

So combining the meaning of "well-regulated" (well-trained) with the lack of mention of cannon, and with Hamilton's arguments about how a state militia could join forces with a small federal militia to suppress tyranny by any single state, or that the states couild resist tyranny by the federal government by combining their militias, we see justification for the legality of registering arms, and limiting the choice of type of weapon.
_____

Again, irrelevant -- and incorrect. (He also noted in another Federalist paper that, had the colonies depended on the militias to win independence, the colonies would have LOST.) Read the debates of the first Congress of the Bill of Rights. In keeping with the three-source rule, I provide three sources directly on point earlier in this thread.
_____

I would be comfortable with an interpretation that the 2nd Amendment requires that some form of personal weapon be legal, but that it can be limited to a particular type, and that it can be listed, registered, and that the owner might have to prove competence.
_____

Except that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, as I already made clear. One also finds the usual "Militia Clause" in Vermont's first constitution -- and, SEPARATELY, as a SEPARATE CLAUSE, the INDIVIDUAL right to "fish and fowl" (and clause also limits those rights).

"CleverBulldog" --

Again, jackass: Unlike you, I have an actual education in actual law, and have had as a central interest the evolution of law from earliest stable colony -- New-Plimoth -- to and through all state constitutions/bills of rights, and to and through ratifications of Constitution/Bill of Rights.
_____

Well, as usual you are completely wrong.
_____

In fact, jackass, and it stands to reason: Not everything in print is law. You should agree with that, else we'll have to enforce Marx. Correct?

That inarguable point being made, let's look at the actual status of your "proofs":
_____

The federalist papers,
_____

Congress makes the laws, by majority rule. And even then they aren't laws unless and until the Executive signs them.

By contrast, The Federalist was written extra-congressionally, by a minority of three delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and was expressly said by them to be an ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN with the BIASED intent to SELL the Constitution. In so doing the writers of those papers fudged here and there, and avoided and danced around anti-Federalist challenges here and there. (See front matter, The Federalist [Wesleyan], Cooke.)

At the same time, on the other end of the political spectrum, was a minority of three delegates who balanced them out when they REFUSED to sign the Constitution because it didn't include a Bill of Rights.

And, to be redundant, The Federalist has never been adopted by any legislative body -- including Congress -- as law. Therefore it is not law.

Law 101: There are two kinds of legal authority: mandatory, and persuasive.

1. These are MANDATORY authority:

A. Constitutions
B. Statutes -- by which means constitutions are implemented.
C. Regulations -- implementing statutes.
D. Court decisions/case law/judge-made law (the latter designation is THOUSANDS of years old).
E. Legislative history -- these are the legislative debates by legislators IN SESSION.

In the latter category are the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and the first Congress' debates of the Bill of Rights. We go to these for intent because they contain the words that came out of the debaters' mouths. Want to know what the Second Amendment MEANS? READ what those who WROTE it SAID it means.

2. These are PERSUASIVE authority:

All mandatory and persuasive authority, of the same kinds, from other -- foreign -- jurisdictions.
_____

the writings of the framers,
_____

Private opinion, regardless how famous the opinionator, is not law.
_____

and the adoption of similar language in state constitutions prove beyond any doubt that it is an individual right.
_____

As I've already made clear, you have it both illiterately and self-servingly ass-backward. The Original Thirteen (actually 14 -- check it out) adopted constitutions (at the suggestion of the Continental Congress) and bills of rights during 1776-77, and 1780. It is from those that the Constitutional Convention drew in framing the US Constitution. And it is primarily from those bills of rights that the US Bill of Rights was drawn. I provided the references in a prior response, above, so you can look it up for yourself. As example, that which became the Second Amendment was drawn from the MILITIA CLAUSES of the PA, NC, VT, and MA "Declarations of Rights". (Conley and Kaminski, Bill of Rights and the States, at xviii.)
_____

The fact that the constitution is consistent in language between 'rights' and 'powers' as they apply to individuals is also relevant.
_____

The first three words of the Constitution are:

WE the PEOPLE, not WE the INDIVIDUAL. WE is PLURAL, and PEOPLE is PLURAL.

Scalia asserts that there is "NO DOUBT" that the Second protects an "individual" right. I showed you DIRECTLY from the debates, verbatim, the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment; that ONLY ONE "individual right" -- that of CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION -- was debated concerning that Amendment; and that that ONE POSITED "individual right" was VOTED DOWN, which OBVIOUSLY means there is AT VERY MINIMUM CONSIDERABLE "DOUBT" that the Second protects an "individual right".

The bottom line is, again, clear and obvious: you don't know what you're alking about; you're intellectually dishonest; and you ignore standards even the Framers themselves established in law: Congress makes the laws, by majority rule; BUT if the Executive doesn't sign the "law," it doesn't become LAW.

Show me, bullshitter, where Congress adopted The Federalist as law, and the Executive SIGNED it into LAW. You can't? Then it isn't LAW. We DO NOT determine the LAW by means of that which is NOT law.
_____

Read the Scalia ruling, he documents it pretty clearly.
_____

Scalia is FULL OF SHIT, a HACK, and LYING against the clear legislative history. You're typical intellectually dishonest wingnut: if you don't like a law, it's "unconstitutional"; if you like a declaration of "law," even if it isn't law, you insist it's the law anyway.
_____

Even Obama was forced to agree.
_____

I doubt he was "forced" to agree, though I'm sure he knows the political necessity not to arouse the lead-poisoned and brain-damaged gun-nuts; but he is wrong, along with everyone else who asserts that "We the PEOPLE" actually means "We the I," or "We the PERSON," or "We the INDIVIDUAL".

Now, tell us, oh wingnut bullshitter: What difference is made by a Second Amendment which -- assuming arguendo -- "protects" an individual "right," yet doesn't protect it FROM the rule of law, as you and your anti-American fuck-ups originally insisted?

And before you answer, READ US Con. Art I., S. 8., C. 15 and 16.

L'enfer, c'est les autres....