[freeeee]

Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means.

Then you may want to retract this statement: "Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state.", as it is contradictory to the purpose of the 2nd.

every one of them had the right to keep and bear arms. Illinois' constitution makes that explicit even while allowing their disarming.

Could you elaborate on this? It appears contradictory.

Even during the Revolutionary War the failures of militias were obvious

Even if they didn't win battles they cost the enemy resources and contributed to the war effort by attrition. Secondly, there is some good evidence they deterred the Japanese and Russians within the last 60 years. Thirdly, their effectiveness or lack thereof is utterly irreverent to the RKBA which stands on its own as an unalienable right.

BTW, your post #124 was a cheap shot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Illinois constitution defines the militia as consisting of every able bodied man and claims to protect the RtKaBA in similiar fashion to the US. You are correct there are massive contradictions between it and actual lawmaking.

Militias were often during the Revolution worse than useless since they could not be planned on. They are of value only against even more untrained and undisciplined enemies.

Pointing out the enemies of Bush is hardly a cheap shot it is a mere FACT.