Originally Posted by
likeaHorse
[The Federalist papers] simply prove without a doubt the intent of the framers which is often argued as the reason behind abolishment of the second amendment. It's self defeating to assume they intended this to be in regards to a militia 100 years before there was such a thing, when the Federalist papers make it pretty plainly clear as to what they meant when they put it in there.
I'm going to have to... partially disagree... with you again.
The Federalist papers represent an effort on the part of three known primary authors (Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay) to encourage ratification... they represent one view-point, but not the only one. At the same time, you're correct in that they provide evidence of some pretty important/influential framers' perspective... they aren't definitive, but neither are they meaningless. But make no mistake, they were meant as propaganda (in response to the work of the anti-Federalists).
More problematically, the authors of the Federalist Papers weren't necessarily even in favor of the Bill of Rights (fearing it too limiting).
So... while influential as historical documents outlining some of the framers' views and motivations, the Federalist papers are not the be all and end all. They're one more source to be considered when determining Constitutional issues related to the Bill of Rights.
PS: you might also want to look into whether the colonies had militias, you'll find they did (I suspect you meant National Guard).