The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

It was also never the intent of the Framers that private citizens – not part of a government sanctioned militia – be allowed to possess any type of firearm for the purpose of defending against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

With specificity, tell us the difference between firearms suitable for service in the militia and firearms suitable for defending against a tyrannical federal government.

Residents of a state have no right to possess weapons consistent with that of the state militia or Federal military because they are not members of the state-authorized and recognized militia –consequently, they may be denied possession of such weapons.

You are, of course, fully aware of the fact your claim, above, runs afoul every 2A-related holding by the USSC.

 

[jc456]

With specificity, tell us the difference between firearms suitable for service in the militia and firearms suitable for defending against a tyrannical federal government.

Well you know, you're not allowed per demofks even though it clearly says it in the 2nd Amendment document.

You are, of course, fully aware of the fact your claim, above, runs afoul every 2A-related holding by the USSC.

Correct