The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make

Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.

This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

You know we are right. You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit. If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.

Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it. The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights. You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.

As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts. You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.

You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol. You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty. You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.

We cannot tolerate people like you.

Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing. Make that stupid fucking argument. Be convincing, you pussy. Or shut the fuck up.

..

You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers. How typical.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.

I prefer to muster and become well regulated, than be as immature and lazy as the right wing.

You're in the wrong century. And wrong in general.

 

[danielpalos]

Freedom includes the right to live a natural life, and not be shot to death in math class.

^^^
Simple minded post
Nowhere in the right to life can be found the right to live in safety.
This is why we have the right to self-defense.

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

Owning a firearm requires self discipline, and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

Fact remains:
Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.

You mean the pat about the "Well Regulated Militia"

Yes.. . which is not related to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

what makes you say that?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make

Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.

This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

You know we are right. You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit. If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.

Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it. The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights. You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.

As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts. You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.

You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol. You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty. You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.

We cannot tolerate people like you.

Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing. Make that stupid fucking argument. Be convincing, you pussy. Or shut the fuck up.

..

You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers. How typical.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.

I prefer to muster and become well regulated, than be as immature and lazy as the right wing.

You're in the wrong century. And wrong in general.

i have to indulge left wing bigotry since you resort to a fallacy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're making the claim I support confiscations.

Nowhere did I make this claim. Strawman? Look inward...

The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,

I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
For instance , the law cannot be changed so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrist because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Where's the ambiguity?

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;

The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....

This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US. As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.


.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

In right wing fantasy, they are Always right and have only the "gospel Truth", simply Because they are on the right wing.

In left wing fantasy, we use quantum computing to discover zero point energy by analogy from all of the vacuum of special pleading the right wing has to resort to, in their alleged arguments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're making the claim I support confiscations.

Nowhere did I make this claim. Strawman? Look inward...

The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,

I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

For instance , the law cannot be changes so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrists because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Where's the ambiguity?

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;

The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....

This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US. As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep an d bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.


.

Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.

However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS. It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided. In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact. One which pisses off those who profit from the sale of guns and ammo, and the lobbyists who bribe Congress Critters to put a fantasy - shall not infringe - before the life, liberty and happiness of so many innocent citizens. Guns will be regulated.

Time will tell, but I suspect as more and more mass murders occur, more suicides and accidental shootings of children too, the people will see gun controls are a necessary part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and my points will seem limited compared to what may happen in the future.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS. It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.

-Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.

You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.

Heller is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.

The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same. My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.

In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to Heller has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.

I note you refused to address these points:

- The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
- Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.

Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?

 

[danielpalos]

You're making the claim I support confiscations.

Nowhere did I make this claim. Strawman? Look inward...

The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,

I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

For instance , the law cannot be changes so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrists because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Where's the ambiguity?

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;

The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....

This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US. As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep an d bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.


.

Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.

However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS. It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided. In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact. One which pisses off those who profit from the sale of guns and ammo, and the lobbyists who bribe Congress Critters to put a fantasy - shall not infringe - before the life, liberty and happiness of so many innocent citizens. Guns will be regulated.

Time will tell, but I suspect as more and more mass murders occur, more suicides and accidental shootings of children too, the people will see gun controls are a necessary part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and my points will seem limited compared to what may happen in the future.

Seems more like judicial activism. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problem in our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS. It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.

-Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.

You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.

Heller is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.

The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same. My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.

In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to Heller has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.

I note you refused to address these points:

- The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
- Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.

Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?

Judicial activism?

This is the understanding of the militia, at the Convention:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS. It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.

-Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.

You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.

Heller is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.

The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same. My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.

In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to Heller has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.

I note you refused to address these points:

- The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
- Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.

Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?

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.

we should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.

Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.

I have a clean bill of health motherfucker....and an FBI background check for my license.

So, fuck you. Suck my dick. Lick my balls.

You and your pet illegal, Dan, can't formulate a coherent argument for why the term "people" in the 2A does not refer to people.

You may commence the sucking.

 

[Lesh]

I have a clean bill of health motherfucker....and an FBI background check for my license.

So, fuck you. Suck my dick. Lick my balls.

You and your pet illegal, Dan, can't formulate a coherent argument for why the term "people" in the 2A does not refer to people.

You may commence the sucking.

Thinking of this guy with an assault weapon gives ya a warm fuzzy huh?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

Sounds like you need to stop infringing and start amending.

Owning a firearm requires self discipline

I agree.

and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol)

Once an addict, always an addict. So, becoming addicted and getting it under control should allow one to obtain a firearm.

a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -

I would disagree on the misdemeanor part. That's bullshit.

detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Gun ownership is a responsibility. One who cannot control him/herself is incapable of handling that responsibility. There must be avenues for re-assessment and reconsideration, but otherwise, fine.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thinking of this guy with an assault weapon gives ya a warm fuzzy huh?

Yeah, yeah.

and people like you should not be allowed to vote.

.

 

[hadit]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

In right wing fantasy, they are Always right and have only the "gospel Truth", simply Because they are on the right wing.

In left wing fantasy, we use quantum computing to discover zero point energy by analogy from all of the vacuum of special pleading the right wing has to resort to, in their alleged arguments.

That's even less coherent than usual.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

Sounds like you need to stop infringing and start amending.

Owning a firearm requires self discipline

I agree.

and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol)

Once an addict, always an addict. So, becoming addicted and getting it under control should allow one to obtain a firearm.

a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -

I would disagree on the misdemeanor part. That's bullshit.

detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Gun ownership is a responsibility. One who cannot control him/herself is incapable of handling that responsibility. There must be avenues for re-assessment and reconsideration, but otherwise, fine.

Domestic violence, including stalking, Driving under the influence, simple assault and mutual combat can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies, and felonies can be dealt down to misdemeanors as part of making a deal, and not going to trial.

5150 W&I is a civil commitment in (usually) a locked psychiatric facility, though many times the detention commences in an ER. If the patient is determined to be a danger to themselves or others they can be detained in a locked facility for treatment. If after a short time (I seem to recall 72 hours) it is determined the patient needs more treatment, s/he can be held for up to two week under 5250 W&I.

After that, if more treatment is necessary, the matter goes to probate court for a hearing, and the patient will be represented by an attorney.

The Judge can rule that the patient be released, or conserved, and if conserved s/he will be at the mercy of the guardian who will make regular progress reports to the court. Thus, the patient can be hospitalized, placed in a group home or in the home of a relative.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Domestic violence, including stalking, Driving under the influence, simple assault and mutual combat can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies, and felonies can be dealt down to misdemeanors as part of making a deal, and not going to trial.

They don't deals serious stuff down to misdemeanors. At least not it Texas. I don't know about California.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
And of course the phrase has value.
But you interpret it wrong.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time. It does not at all imply any exceptions to that. Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.