[mvpel]

Actually, the preface of the Second Amendment does provide an argument for treating aliens (even legal immigrants who are not citizens) differently. The militia is the body of armed citizens (not the National Guard as the gun-grabbers would have it), and it is the right of all citizens to be part of the militia — to keep and bear arms — that the Second Amendment protects, not the right of invaders to keep and bear arms.

So you're saying, like the gun-grabbers always do, that your Second Amendment right depends on whether or not you're recognized by the government as being in the US militia?

I submit that the right to armed self-defense depends on absolutely NOTHING, except removal of rights as punishment for a crime under the due process of law.

There should be NO laws pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carry of guns. NONE WHATSOEVER, if the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's written on. They didn't say "unduly burdened," they said "infringed."

[The_Reader_David]

So you're saying, like the gun-grabbers always do, that your Second Amendment right depends on whether or not you're recognized by the government as being in the US militia?

Not at all. The militia as the Founders understood it exists independent of government recognition -- as the militias that fought the British existed independent of recognition by either the British Crown or the Continental Congress.

While there is a general human right to self-defense, the armed person who is in another country not his own, unless there on terms agreeable to the government of that country, is an invader, and as I observed, in normal times subject to armed resistance, rather than being coddled by the courts.