[John Kilduff]

As you know, Andy, I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; but we needn't rehash those points of dispute now.

Perhaps more importantly: the underlying principle of the Bill of Rights is not to grant rights to people or states, but rather to reiterate and emphasize those rights which already inherently exist, as per the principles upon which the USA was founded.

If there were no Bill of Rights, or 4th Amendment, the right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches would still exist in the USA.

If there were no Bill of Rights or 1st Amendment, the right of the people to peacably assemble would still exist in the USA.

So: the 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to keep and bear arms; it merely re-affirms it. It does not limit that right, either, because it cannot limit without also having conferred in the first place.

Whether your interpretation of the militia clause is correct or not, is immaterial, because the right to keep and bear exists irrespective of the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment. It is like the inherent right to the pursuit of happiness, or like the right to freedom of expression, or like the right of freedom of association.

As the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As the 10th Amendment says, "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."

The Constitution is essentially a timeless document, because history repeats itself, and in spans even much longer than the 200+ years of the USA: the founders knew well the dangers of government tyranny, and did their best to prevent it with the drafting of the Constitution.

It would be folly to presume that civilization, or America, have now so far advanced that the masses no longer need the means to resist potential government tyranny.

Also, the militias of that era past were NOT under control of the state governments in the manner in which today's National Guards are.

The most basic purpose of the Constitution is to prevent government tyranny. The most essential means of preventing tyranny is for the people, in widespread fashion, to have the means to resist it. Therefore it would be ludicrous to think that the founders intended for the common people to be deprived of their inherent right to freely bear arms.

They went so far as to reiterate this right in the Bill of Rights, but as one founder feared, the Bill of Rights may have been a bad idea, because people would take it to mean that rights not expressed in it, did not exist; or would take it to mean that it in itself conferred rights: but those rights of the people exist independently and inherently. IMO this is exactly the trap people into which politicians and courts have fallen regarding the Bill of Rights: first they erroneously presume it confers rights, then they try to interpret the rights which it "confers". IMO this is what you are doing with your interpretation of the 2nd.

You don't really think that there would be no right to keep and bear if there were no 2nd Amendment, do you? How about the right to peacably assemble, or to petition government for redress of grievances? You don't think the wording of the Bill of Rights defines or limits those rights, do you? Or that it was intended to define or limit any such rights?

Thanks for reading.