[Rifleman]

The "State's Rights" interpretation of the 2nd is just sophistry by disputants who know that their possition is not tenable. If we take that possition seriously, such questions as, "May Louisiana have its own nuclear armed warplanes, under the 2nd Amemdment? And if not, why not?" have to be answered. And they have no useful answers for such questions. Under such an interpretation, there could be almost no limits that the Federal Government could place on the choices that a state might make about arming its militia forces.

Of course, the "State's Rights" formulation is not meant to be taken seriously as Constitutional Law. It is used only as a squid uses its ink...to obscure.

[ml/nj]

The "State's Rights" interpretation of the 2nd is just sophistry by disputants who know that their possition is not tenable. If we take that possition seriously, such questions as, "May Louisiana have its own nuclear armed warplanes, under the 2nd Amemdment?

Actually, I didn't raise any "State's Rights" issues.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to the people.

Your argument here is interesting though, because all the gun-grabbers seem to say the the "militia" refers only to the States. Which is it?

And BTW the argument about States haveing there own nuclear arsenals is a straw dog. The Nation Guard is a State instituion, and so far as I know they are not restrcited even by the looney left.

ML/NJ

[Blood of Tyrants]

States have no rights. They have only powers granted by the people. Just like the federal govenment.