As long as I'm going on at some length concerning the proper interpretation
of the Second Amendment, let me share a bit of text that I just found. The
source of the text is a biography of Jefferson, published just eight years
after his death by B. L. Rayner, in 1834.

You can get not only a strong sense of Jefferson's philosophy, but also a
mention of his anathema to the idea of a national standing army. I am sure
that the use of the word "militia" in the Constitution was quite intentional,
to draw as sharp a distinction as possible to the idea of a European army.

Rayner writes:

========================================

Mr. Jefferson received a copy of the new Constitution early in November,
1787. He had read and contemplated its provisions with great satisfaction,
though not without serious apprehensions from some of its features. His
principal objections were to the omission of a declaration of rights ensuring
freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the person under the
uninterrupted protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by jury in civil as
well as criminal cases; and to the perpetual re-eligibility of the president.
His opinions were immediately consulted by his political friends in the
United States, and he communicated to them his approbations and objections
without reserve. They are found stated at length and in a most interesting
manner in a letter to Mr. Madison dated Paris, December 20th, 1787.

     "I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on
of itself peaceably without needing continual recurrence to the state
legislatures. I like the organization of the government into Legislative,
Judiciary, and Executive. I like the power given the Legislature to levy
taxes and, for that reason solely, approve of the greater house being chosen
by the people directly. For though I think a house chosen by them will be
very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations, etc.,
yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the
fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by
representatives chosen immediately by themselves. I am captivated by the
compromise of the opposite claims of the great and little states, of the
latter to equal and the former to proportional influence. I am much pleased,
too, with the substitution of the method of voting by persons instead of that
of voting by states; and I like the negative given to the Executive with a
third of either house, though I should have liked it better had the Judiciary
been associated for that purpose or invested with a similar and separate
power. There are other good things of less moment.

     "I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a Bill of
Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of
religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies,
restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the
habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the
laws of the land and not by the law of nations...   Let me add that a Bill of
Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth,
general or particular, and what no just government should refuse or rest on
inferences.

     "The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment
in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office and most
particularly in the case of the President. Experience concurs with reason in
concluding that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if the
Constitution permits it. He is then an officer for life. This once observed,
it becomes of so much consequence to certain nations to have a friend or a
foe at the head of our affairs that they will interfere with money and with
arms. A Galloman [German] or an Angloman [Englishman] will be supported by
the nation he befriends. If once elected and at a second or third election
out-voted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold
possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for
him, especially if they are the central ones lying in a compact body
themselves and separating their opponents, and they will be aided by one
nation of Europe while the majority are aided by another. The election of a
President of America some years hence will be much more interesting to
certain nations of Europe than ever the election of a king of Poland was.
Reflect on all the instances in history, ancient and modern, of elective
monarchies and say if they do not give foundation for my fears: the Roman
emperors, the popes while they were of any importance, the German emperors
till they became hereditary in practice, the kings of Poland, the Deys of the
Ottoman dependancies. It may be said that if elections are to be attended
with these disorders, the seldomer they are renewed the better. But
experience shows that the only way to prevent disorder is to render them
uninteresting by frequent changes. An incapacity to be elected a second time
would have been the only effectual preventative. The power of removing him
every fourth year by the vote of the people is a power which will not be
exercised. The king of Poland is removable every day by the Diet, yet he is
never removed...."

The ardor and perseverance of Mr. Jefferson in the effort to obtain a
supplementary Bill of Rights to the Constitution were soon crowned with
success. At the session of 1789, Mr. Madison submitted to Congress a series
of amendments which, with various propositions on the same subject from other
States, were referred to a committee composed of one member from each State
in the Union. The result was the annexation in due form of the ten original
amendments to our Federal Constitution. So great was the influence of Mr.
Jefferson in forwarding this measure, though absent during the whole time,
that he is generally regarded as the father of these amendments. They
embraced the principal objections urged by him, without going far enough to
satisfy him entirely. By them, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press, the right of the people to deliberate and petition for redress of
grievances, the right of keeping and bearing arms, of the trial by jury in
civil as well as criminal cases, the exemption from general warrants, and
from the quartering of soldiers in private dwellings, were pronounced
irrevocable and inviolable by the government, and the powers not delegated by
the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States were declared to be
reserved to the States or to the people.

=========================================

The full text of the Rayner autobiography is on-line at:

     http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1683/lj21.htm

The source of the text above appears in Chapter 21.

Wirt Atmar