Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

As States don't have rights. They have powers.

 

[danielpalos]

too bad those of your point of view have even less than that to work with since you have nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Persons who may believe our federal Constitution is any Thing but Concise and definitively, UnAmbiguous; if it seems that way to you it is merely Because, you have insufficient clue and insufficient Cause.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Is that it? Is that your argument?

It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".

Give me a break.

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.

Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.

no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

And the last part removes all doubt about whether it is a state's right or a people's right. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." makes it clear that it is the right enjoyed by the citizens, not the state.


The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that the founding fathers wanted and expected the citizens to be able to change the gov't.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, it clearly gives the states only the power to appoint officers and the authority of training according to the discipline Congress decrees.

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(there are 13 powers described)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"






So no, the states are NOT what is being described in the 2nd Amendment. It is the PEOPLE's rights being described.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here is an excerpt from a very good article that shows Madison's intent that the 2nd amendment be a right of the people.

"When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4. His speech to Congress can be found here.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals. Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions. This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes. In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

First of all, states do not have "rights". They have "powers".

Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia. That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear Persons who may believe our federal Constitution is any Thing but Concise and definitively, UnAmbiguous; if it seems that way to you it is merely Because, you have insufficient clue and insufficient Cause.

I have a lot of clue. More than sufficient. The question is, do you? I think we know the answer to this. You're a troll.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all, states do not have "rights". They have "powers".

Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia. That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.

Not actually true, the last part I mean.

The Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This doesn't give rights to individuals, it gives powers to states. Which half helps your point.

However 1A-9A do protect individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Is that it? Is that your argument?

It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".

Give me a break.

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.

Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.

no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

And the last part removes all doubt about whether it is a state's right or a people's right. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." makes it clear that it is the right enjoyed by the citizens, not the state.


The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that the founding fathers wanted and expected the citizens to be able to change the gov't.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, it clearly gives the states only the power to appoint officers and the authority of training according to the discipline Congress decrees.

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(there are 13 powers described)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"






So no, the states are NOT what is being described in the 2nd Amendment. It is the PEOPLE's rights being described.

Can you cite where it is ok to ignore legislative Intent and Purpose in our laws?

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is an excerpt from a very good article that shows Madison's intent that the 2nd amendment be a right of the people.

"When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4. His speech to Congress can be found here.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals. Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions. This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes. In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.

dudes and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of this sovereign States' right and Power:

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.

It must be considered a necessary and proper clue and Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

First of all, states do not have "rights". They have "powers".

Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia. That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.

States have rights in relations to each other and the general government.

 

[danielpalos]

First of all, states do not have "rights". They have "powers".

Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia. That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.

Not actually true, the last part I mean.

The Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This doesn't give rights to individuals, it gives powers to states. Which half helps your point.

However 1A-9A do protect individual rights.

The term is powers and both States and Individuals of the People as Persons are declared (for legal venue purposes).

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

It doesn't need to. The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia. And the states have little control over the militia anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.

run out of logic and reason so soon?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

It doesn't need to. The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia. And the states have little control over the militia anyway.

The point is, it cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading from the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.