Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

We resolved this matter in Wickard.....over 80 years ago

 

Which ultimately means nothing whatsoever. The matter of the second amendment, and what it protects, has been settled by the united state supreme court, and is beyond the scope of anyone to change or modify in any manner. Even if the Heller ruling is incorrect, it is now settled law, and no amount of opinions by legal professors to the contrary have any significance. The only way Heller can be changed, is if a future united state supreme court chooses to do such. Donald Trump will hold office for at least three more years, giving him plenty of opportunity to appoint more justices. And if they are like Neil Gorsuch, they will support the Heller interpretation and expand upon it.

For all intents and purposes, whether right or wrong, the matter is over.

 

The second amendment does not state that militia duties are the only standard under which firearms ownership would be allowed.

 

It is no more over than any other SCOTUS decision. Try to tell the pro life groups that Roe makes the matter over

 

There are a great many practical reasons for such. Chief among them is overall length, making them cumbersome for use inside the home.

Beyond such, most bolt action rifles are chambered for rounds far more powerful than what is used by more common semi-automatic rifles. Such ammunition would be a poor choice for use inside the home, as overpenetration is guaranteed.

Unless they are impaired by illicit substances. In which case sounds mean nothing whatsoever.

 

Then why has it not done such yet? What exactly is the federal government waiting for?

 

Gosh, if only the original draft of the Second Amendment had such a preamble. Or if the states didn't already have self defense clause in their own constitutions.

Can you tell us why states continued to add self defense clauses regarding the right of the individual ownership of firearms to their constitutions in the decades after ratification and well into the last century if the right actually didn't exist?

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

That depends on the city, state, you live in. Further, it might depend on the arm you wanted. Firearms are like anything else, there are rules, and regs, classes, functions, purposes, etc. The 2nd Amendment isn't a blank check. You live within a society. What you own, how you act, so on, and so forth, affects others. We the people, in order to form a more perfect union........... This is a union. It's a contract designed to afford the best outcome. This isn't the United States of Dodge City.

 

Thus meaning that it is not possible for even yourself to explain just how the militia only interpretation would actually work. thus illustrating the inherent flaw of supporting this argument.

Demonstrate where it has been argued otherwise.

Personal conduct affects others. However there has been no demonstrating on the part of yourself, or anyone else involved in this discussion, that would show how ownership of any particular firearm, in any way, affects others. How exactly does that work? How would private ownership of long range rifle by yourself affect others around you in a manner different than if said ownership was of a handgun?

 

So the needs of the collective, as defined by the collective, outweigh the rights of the individual?

 

Good, we're all set then. You can have some firearms, you can't have others. Some people can get some licenses, some can't. Some states allow some things, others don't.

 

That's called a society.

 

no, but the 2nd Amendment only lists The Militia as the purpose of an armed citizenry.

 

Please answer the question - do the wants or needs of the collective, or society, as defined by the collective or society, outweigh the rights of the individual

 

As simple as that.

 

By that standard, we should have let Plessy V Ferguson stand and still allow racist Segregation.

 

I did answer. That's called a society.

 

Then why can't the government detain anyone for any reason, or conduct searches willy-nilly, or not allow speech it feels is detrimental to its version of society?

 

Because this society has laws against that.

 

I would argue that unless the States make it clear that The People shall never be called upon as an Unorganized Militia to defend the State in times of crisis, the Militia clause of the 2nd allows the citizens to arm themselves.

However, if the Feds change the US Code and the States change their laws, to no longer state that all able-bodied men age 18-45 and veterans to age 60 are the Unorganize Militia, then the Militia clause becomes null and void and there is no longer a Constitutionally protected right to Keep and Bear Arms as part of a Militia.

But I think we can as for now allow folks to Keep arms at home and use for home protection and hunting, but the Right to Bear arms is only within the context of Militia duty.

 

have you and others who are wrong about the purpose of the second amendment found any evidence from the founders that remotely even hints at

1) that the government had a power to ban arms private citizens wanted to own

2) or that the second amendment did not limit the federal government

 

Indeed it does not.

 

that would require you to honestly believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow gun bans.

 

Yes, but as I stated, the US Code lists all able bodied men age 18-45 as members of the Unorganized Militia. That mans until the US Code changes, all able-bodied men have the Constitutionally protected Right to acquire and possess guns at home, use them for defense of the home, and presumably use them for hunting. Bear them in public? Only when called upon as part of the Militia.

 

No such statement was ever made. The statement made by yourself was that firearms had different classes and functions. Such does not, under any circumstances, translate into this notion that certain legally available firearms cannot be owned, or that only certain individuals are legally able to own them, while others are denied such without due process.