The Right To Bear Arms

[Blues Man]

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP
Bullet weight 125
Muzzle Energy 575
Foot Per Second at Muzzle. 1440

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe. Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat
Bullet weight 37
Muzzle Energy 436
Foot Per Second at Muzzle 2300

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.

And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either. It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round. The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.

I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
But I think yours are more correct.
However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.

Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense. The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop. The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well. Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls. The 38 special will only go through one or two. If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact. But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round. Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe. The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall. Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall. And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.

Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed. The
AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds. If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle. If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further. This is one of the reasons that the AR or 223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter. You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together. It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.

If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice. It won't penetrate that much but close does count. And I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me. If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there. Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect. If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns. If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.

Depends on the round

Hollow points lose energy very quickly

Anyone not shooting hollow points for self defense is an idiot

 

[Lesh]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

Yes, I hunt with an AR, but that is NOT the reason for the 2A, never was about hunting. Read, learn, and educate yourself.

A. I never said the 2A had anything to do with hunting. Hunting is a reasonable use of firearms but the 2A addresses gun ownership in a militia context only

B. If you ain't hunting razorbacks...you're a really poor shot

 

[watchingfromafar]

What difference does it make if the gun is dressed up to look "evil", like an AR-15 or a regular, wood stock, hunting rifle?

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
I want---
[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
[3] illegal to carry a firearm in public places
[4] provide a valid home address

Any objections?

 

[Markle]

A. I never said the 2A had anything to do with hunting. Hunting is a reasonable use of firearms but the 2A addresses gun ownership in a militia context only

B. If you ain't hunting razorbacks...you're a really poor shot

I bet you failed English in school, didn't you?

Please look up the use of commas. It could help you in the future too.

Here, I'll help!

 

[Lesh]

That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?

 

[Rigby5]

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP
Bullet weight 125
Muzzle Energy 575
Foot Per Second at Muzzle. 1440

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe. Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat
Bullet weight 37
Muzzle Energy 436
Foot Per Second at Muzzle 2300

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.

...

And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either. It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round. The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.

I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
But I think yours are more correct.
However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.

Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense. The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop. The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well. Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls. The 38 special will only go through one or two. If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact. But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round. Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe. The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall. Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall. And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.

Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed. The
AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds. If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle. If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further. This is one of the reasons that the AR or 223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter. You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together. It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.

If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice. It won't penetrate that much but close does count. And I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me. If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there. Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect. If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns. If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.

No disagreement from me on any of that.
I happen use use a .357 for home defense because it is convenient to secure, but I use low power .38 special, FMJ bullets.
A shotgun likely is best, both from image and not needing as good of aim.
But not sure everyone in the house would be comfortable with a 12 gauge?
Considering a .410.

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?

Yes.
If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.

Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
It was wrong to change that basic safety.

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong

That is not at all true. Many private individuals have tanks, and it can never be blanket illegal, even if slightly difficult. But a Brinks armored vehicle is almost a tank as well.
Private individuals have nuclear reactors, which essentially are nuclear bombs, so there is nothing that can't be privately owned, if government can own it.
That is required by the 14th amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong

Yes I can. I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes. Expensive? Yes. Perfectly legal to own and fire them. However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.

You can’t own a loaded tank

Yes you can own a loaded tank.
You just have to go through all the right hoops.
In fact, there are people I know who have cannon with loaded shells, so that they can blow up potential avalanches.
There is no legal way for government to blanket prohibit anything.

 

[Rigby5]

You can’t own a loaded tank

Yes you can. I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them. Artillery pieces also. What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?

Very heavily regulated. They have a mistake pointing at your tank.

Depends on the state city county

State, city, and country can all regulate as practical, but NONE can automatically deny in a democratic republic.
Anyone can manage it if they spend the time and money.

 

[Rigby5]

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

I never said I was safer because I carry. I also never said I was less safe for carrying.

Safety is an illusion as all life is risk. Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.

If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?

Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
It gives you more control and options.
If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.

I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe

And Control is an illusion just like safety

Hard to believe you NEVER has even a single need, but still, carrying changes what you do, and the attitude you project.
By making you more confident, that likely scared off potential trouble, without even having to actually put your hand on it.
Control and safety are NOT illusions, or else there would not be so many women raped.
Clearly if these women had been armed and trained, there would have been fewer successful rapes.
It is not an illusion.

 

[Markle]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
I want---
[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
[3] illegal to carry a firearm in public places
[4] provide a valid home address

None of those things are relevant. Frantically you're trying to further regulate law-abiding citizens but ignoring criminals. Where are you steps to further punish people who commit crimes with a gun?

Here in Florida some years back, we passed what is called the 10-20-Life law. If you commit a crime with a gun and no one is injured, your minimum sentence is 10 years in prison. If fire the gun, 20-year minimum sentence, shoot someone, 25 years to life.

That is how you reduce gun crime. You're eager to punish law abiding citizens. I, on the other hand, demand we punish your idols, the ciminals.

 

[Rigby5]

That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

Since the whole Bill of Rights are only restrictions on the federal government, it is illogical to assume the founders were only concerned with making sure the federal government did not disarm the National Guard.
Clearly most states also describe their state militia as being all able bodied, male, adults.

 

[Lesh]

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.

That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together

The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment

 

[Rigby5]

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.

That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together

The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment

Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
{...
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.
...}
First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia. It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body. And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country. Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms? It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people". The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that. The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled. The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis. When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation. We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable. What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
And that is still true. Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia? That would make no sense. Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.

 

[danielpalos]

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves. Why?

defense of self and property is a natural right.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!

Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the Heller case. To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.

There is no appeal to ignorance. Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[Markle]

That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?

None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma. That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.

Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.

 

[Flash]

That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?

None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma. That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.

Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.

If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the Heller case. Justice Scalia pretty well put that silliness to rest when he said it was an individual right.

Of course these stupid Moon Bats only believe what they want to believe. They are dumb like that.

 

[Markle]

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.

That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together

The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment

Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
{...
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.
...}
First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia. It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body. And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country. Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms? It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people". The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that. The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled. The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis. When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation. We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable. What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
And that is still true. Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia? That would make no sense. Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.

Punctuation is critical to understand the Second Amendment, well, actually, ALL of our founding documents.

 

[Rigby5]

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves. Why?

defense of self and property is a natural right.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!

Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the Heller case. To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.

There is no appeal to ignorance. Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to LIMIT and RESTRICT federal power or control.
It was a list of guarantees that the federal powers would be strictly limited.
A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.

And there was to be no standing army for the federal government of the United states.
There were only supposed to be state and local militia, which the federal government had to request the governors to borrow.

If the 2nd amendment had been to arm a federal militia, then why does it say, the "Right of the PEOPLE to bear arms", shall not be infringed?

If it was about a federal Militia, then it would not have been in the Bill of Rights at all, since that is only for federal limits and restrictions.

And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.

For example, this is from the New York State Constitution:
{...
ARTICLE XII (9)

Defense

[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

...}

New York State Constitution

 

[Markle]

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.

That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together

The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment

Really, your ignorance of the English Language is sad. You do not get to adjust it to your own need.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.

That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together

The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment

Again...

How did the founders preserve the ability to have a well-regulated militia?

Prohibited the infringment of the right of the people.

You want to ignore the very plain and direct meaning of the operative because you want to take away guns.

We should ignore your bullshit.