>>In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois’ Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.
>>
>>“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
>>
>>
>>http://www.suntimes.com/16951312-761/federal-appeals-court-tosses-state-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons.html
>>http://www.scribd.com/doc/116435469/7th-Circuit-Court-overturns-Illinois-concealed-carry-ban
>
>Aren't I the same guy who said just today he wasn't going to get into political debates any more? ;-) The flesh is weak.
>
>The founders never intended for us to keep and bear arms at all times. The Second Amendment doesn't say that. It was explicitly stated that the intent was a citizen militia as a means of defending us against attacking forces. Citizens were not allowed to keep firearms or carry them around. Arms were kept in munitions facilities to be distributed in times of crisis. When a standing army was established in 1850 it became a more or less dead issue until the NRA came along. It was never the idea that we should always be ready to plug holes in whoever we found threatening or all go around packing.
>
>I truly do not understand why we are the only developed nation which does not tightly control guns or why we have the gun fatality rate we do. If you look at the statistics that is not a club we should want to belong in.
>
>The NRA has to be the most effective lobbying machine this country has ever had. Until around 1980 this debate did not even exist. They push, push, push, and raise boatloads of money.
>
>Here is the text of the Second Amendment. You only need to read a few words to understand what was and wasn't intended.
>
>"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."
>
>MILITIA

You can repeat the same lines until you're blue in the face it doesn't make them factually or historically accurate. The history is known. The framers intentions were clear. The Supreme Court has ruled. Federal courts are overturning these laws because they are unconstitutional. You are incorrect.

Here's an excellent piece on the history leading up to the 2nd Amendment and it's role in the ratification of the Constitution.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

The conclusion summarizes the points nicely. Emphasis mine in direct response to your points above.
VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.


Update : For further understanding see the Supreme Court's Opinion as it contains the origin and history of litigation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf