State militia regulation (which also included private usage of arms) since many state militiamen used their arms in state and private usage. This is why both the phrases to keep (use arms privately) arms and bear (use arms in war for the state) arms are in 2A.
Except Art I Sec 8 already gave the feds plenary power over state militias, and the text of the 2a does not grant any power to the federal government. A plenary power is the ultimate authority to do as you command. They literally cannot grant themselves more power over state militias than that which they had already granted themselves years prior. There is no double secret authority. Further: Point to the language in the 2a that grants the federal government any powers. Be very specific.
Except, I already pointed out the first Senate felt the need to regulate state militias more than what was already in The Constitution. You do know what amendments to The Constitution do???They change The Constitution. BTW, if the first Senators already knew there were existing regulations on state militias in The Constitution, I would think 2A was redundant, was unnecessary.
Cite it. Copy/paste the text that demonstrates claim to be true. Oh wait. You won't. Because you know you can't.
Cite it. Copy/paste the text that demonstrates claim to be true. Oh wait. You won't. Because you know you can't.
You've certainly made naked assertions that you cannot back up. Point out where in the 2a ANY grant of ANY power is given to ANY government. Hell, while you're at it, point out ANY AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS which grants a power to the feds. Go on. We'll wait.
Just one small thing to clarify (which you probably already know). The right to own... anything... was considered a natural law (the right to private ownership). Be it boots, a horse, a hat... and yes, a gun... But the 2nd A doesn't refer to any right to "own" anything. In any way whatsoever. It doesn't grant it, it doesn't limit it, it doesn't address it in any way shape or form. Because the right to own things... anything... already existed. So there was no need. The 2nd A reafirms the obligation of the states to form militias as a response to the right of the people to be part of them. Makes no difference, as far as the 2nd A goes, who owns the guns that they use. The only part of the Constitution where that is in any way addressed is in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16; which gives Congress the power to provide for arming the militia.
More revisionist nonsense. You could make that argument about the entire bill of rights-which was what the federalists said-don't worry, this new government doesn't have the power to regulate, speech, arms, etc.
The limitation of 2A on federal power is that 2A won't countermand the wishes of arms rights as established by state constitutions...You know that last 13 words of 2A which everyone loves to quote, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” means 2A won't infringe on the rights of state constitutions to establish arms rights.
I agree with your post. IMO, if someone wants to grant universal arms ownership to Americans, 2A should be scrapped and a new arms amendment passed, er, 2A should be scrapped since 2A is outdated since the federal gov't now has standing armies.
Which also begs the question: Why did the first Senate pass 2A if arms rights were already established and regulations for state militias were already established in The Constitution?
If you know any history of the passage of 2A, you know that J. Madison introduced the wording of 2A and it was to be an exact copy of Virginia's arms rights provisions in Virginia's constitution which meant that 2A was going to grant 'universal arms right to Americans' but the bill was debated and debated and reworded by the first Senate until the convoluted hodgepodge of wording 2A now is. I suggest you read about the motivations of the passage of 2A by the first Senate.
