Almost forgot...Some States are doing lot of powers not granted repudiation of federal law at the present time. Check into what your State is doing and see if you might be able to support them in this sort of effort. This is one of the battlegrounds where an enlightened and progressive state can shine the light and progress us back to Constitutional law. Might even find some one worth voting for! Now there's a happy thought.

PS I'm not an attorney either. I've got more self respect and that wasn't sarcasm.

Remember in the the context of the time in which it was written. The first part is the mission statement in our parlance the second part is how it is to be done. It was written for thirteen independent nations that had decided to become one country but wanted protection from that which they had just left. Well regulated is covered in the section on Congress charged with writing the regulations to govern the use of the military and later on when the National Guard was formed from state militias the federal government deemed state militias and invalid. However the second part was how to arm the militia. Back then everyone had a rifle.or musket bingo. You bring your own.

None of which covers self protection except as part of military formation or living on the frontier or hunting .

Now show me in the Constitution where those three things are the sole domain of the federal or for that matter a state government? self-defense, hunting, location of housing which right now is not the frontier but the hood.

The right was never granted to the central government. It may have been granted to the individual 13 now 50 States and if so is probably different in each State. But if not it's a power not granted. So let's assume the feds are right and the National Guard makes your state irrelevant. All that does is make the USA the State that needs protecting by a well regulated militia. In that case we would be under the Swiss system where soldiers keep their rifles in their homes.

So the use of the Second Amendment at best and only if the state chooses to have a formal militia formation and some do puts you on a call up list. As far as your individual right is concerned it's a very weak reed especially in a nation that has turned it's back on the Constitution in favor of Executive Orders or simply by ignoring it. And has formed a protective echelon to back up that particular.

I can point at least five major (every four years) elections as my evidence.

The stronger defense is show me where the right of self-defense, target shooting, hunting and the like rights granted to government. You will hear a loot of booshwah about not needed but the need is absolute. You can't plink targets without a plinker. It's much the stronger argument and has NEVER been amended nor has that been attempted far as I know. Simply saying it isn't needed means jack. The only way the left can deal with it is ignore the Constitution and make show their fascist face only to clearly

and no you can't start your own militia only the State Government can do that.

You will recall Arlen Specter made a spectacle of himself in showing the face of American fascist extremism on this very point.

State Militias used or not and they do serve one or two purposes these days. One is to take charge of the local armories when the Guard unit is activated. Another might be working with employers on the rights of Guard members returning from initial training or a longer term activation.

Do I like it? No. But wishful thinking and misinterpretation (and by the way the Supreme Court has consistently ruled the same way) or worse redefining the way the left does gets us nowhere.

The battleground is rights not granted. and citizen responsibility and the recall and getting none of the above on the ballot and reclaiming the Constitution and making any adjustments the citizens want and they don''t want following without benefit of misinterpretation or changing the meanings and intents.

I'm beginning to wonder was 24 years Infantry worth the bother.

Where in the Second Amendment did you find THAT? It's restricted in the first few words. You need to be looking at the ninth and tenth. Restricting is not a power granted. the Second only defines the use. the Federal governments only controlling power is regulations governing the military by congress. It's an assumption of power no less illegal than the forcing everyone to pay for Chevy that was never going to be built or delivered.

republican, republican, republican all Government Party three strikes your out.

Is there NO ONE?

I'd settle for "Ask Not..." Or one who had a level of American English sufficient to understand the oath of office. But this '''notion'' of a ''fundamentally' two word vocabulary is a bit much to take.

If George Soros can buy votes and that has been promoted curiously as a first amendment right why not Donald Trump. After all they live by the dictum I have the right without explanation to all your rights without exception. Then we could get a focus group of billionaires and let them ante up - winner takes all.

Besides that's their part in the quadrennial script given to them by the left wing of the left wing. However you can afford to vote for who you want. That is one of the umpteen choices. I would much prefer to see a million votes for Mickey Mouse cast as the best available choice than the current ho hum failed crop waiting for plow and another growing season.

It has a number of versions but that is the gist of it. Usually coupled with what happened to your country it's such a fascist police state anymore.

I could only think to say ''we were sent to war and while our backs were turned....''