Why? You keep asserting that only militia members enjoy 2nd Amendment protections, and that the feds get to define the militia. You won't accept that "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually applies to all people, save only those specifically and individually adjudicated otherwise. (Which leads to answering your sarcastic previous questions: those rights are a matter of the adjudication process, starting from first principle "innocent until proven guilty" and protecting the innocent while discerning the guilty.)
Short term memory loss?
No, just giving you an opportunity to confirm or deny that you do, indeed, think a majority can vote away the rights of a minority - which admittedly you have made clear you believe and defend. Even a state constitution is subject to a mere vote of alteration; in your assertions there is no "natural right of RKBA".
I have no idea where they would get the power to do so.
In 922(o), the feds have banned a category of arms entirely suitable, even central, to militia use and national defense. If you can't explain what's wrong with that prohibition, then it is a very short step to banning pretty much all other arms, and optionally stopping at the "the Founding Fathers had muskets, so that's all you can have" line.
For the reasons I just gave.
You gave evasions, not reasons.
You hold that:
- the feds get to define who is in the militia
- the only "people" who may enjoy the 2nd Amendment are the militia members as defined
- states which do not explicitly protect RKBA in their constitutions can, by popular vote, outlaw individual ownership of arms
- states which do explicitly protect RKBA in their constitutions can, per state constitutional process, repeal that protection and then promptly execute the prior point
- the feds can prohibit categories of weapons, without limit short of total prohibition of all firearms (say, ban everything but muskets)
These are the interpretations people get of your assertions. Now, without insulting me, please articulate the misunderstandings in the above points.
They set minimum standards, yes. There's nothing whatsoever stopping each state from enrolling whomever they please. We have the National Guard today, yet many states have a separate and independent State Guard.
"You won't accept that "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually applies to all people, save only those specifically and individually adjudicated otherwise."
Correct. I don't accept that.
When ratified in 1791, whole groups of people were not protected by the second amendment. Slaves, of course. Women and children. Indians. Foreigners. The infirm. The disabled. The elderly. The list goes on.
"THE PEOPLE" were white, male, citizens, 18-45 years of age. Dispute that with some facts rather than your guessing games -- "specifically and individually adjudicated otherwise", indeed.
"the only "people" who may enjoy the 2nd Amendment are the militia members as defined"
So say the courts.
"states which do not explicitly protect RKBA in their constitutions can, by popular vote, outlaw individual ownership of arms"
Yep. Not ALL arms, as I explained.
You wouldn't force the citizens of another state to protect that right, would you? Would you force those citizens to also protect the right to an abortion? Or will you let them decide how they want to live their lives?
You've got this little dictatorship streak in you, don't you? Kinda like YOU know what's best for everyone else.
"states which do explicitly protect RKBA in their constitutions can, per state constitutional process, repeal that protection and then promptly execute the prior point"
Sure. And they can repeal the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"the feds can prohibit categories of weapons, without limit short of total prohibition of all firearms (say, ban everything but muskets)"
Nope. A state can take the federal government to court, claiming that their ability to form an effective, well regulated Militia is being infringed. In Miller v US, the U.S. Supreme Court said specifically that Militia weapons were protected from infringement.
"In 922(o), the feds have banned a category of arms entirely suitable, even central, to militia use and national defense"
They did? Then where does the U.S. military get their weapons? Where does the Texas State Guard get their weapons?
The federal government regulated the interstate transportation of certain weapons by private individuals, yes. This was done for public safety reasons, and passed the "rational basis" test by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Naturally, that is unacceptable to those here at FR who claim that at ratification in 1791, not all of WE THE PEOPLE were protected by the second amendment. Slaves were not, as they could not attain citizenship while enslaved. Nor Indians, as long as they were members of tribes hostile to our Constitution.
To say that the 2nd did not apply to women and children/ foreigners/ the infirm/ the disabled or the elderly is to deny the reality of our history. -- That ALL of the above were, in emergencies, duty bound -- and did defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic, -- is beyond rational dispute.
That only "the militia" [white, male, citizens, 18-45 years of age] were obligated to serve as troops [to execute the "Laws of the Union", etc, by Congress]; - did not absolve everyone else from their duties to defend the nation.
The Courts that claim the only "people" who are protected by the 2nd Amendment are militia members - [white, male, citizens, 18-45 years of age] are simply finding excuses to legitimize infringements by fed/state or local gov't.
Popular votes [majority rule] cannot 'outlaw' individuals who own arms, nor the arms that they own. -- Malum Prohibitum laws violate due process as per the 14th Amendment.
To suggest that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be repealed is to deny a basic founding concept, - that our rights to life, liberty or property are inalienable.