Correct. I said it refers to state Militias.
"It only says that a well-regulated militia (specifying neither local, state, nor national) is necessary to the security of a free state."
Correct again. And to what Militia is it referring? A different Militia than what is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 -- you know, the one with officers appointed by each state?
"Because militias are necessary for such freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't to be infringed (so that the people will be able to form a militia if necessary)."
Correct again. That's three in a row!
"You seem to lack even a child's ability to parse simple English."
Bzzzzzt! Well, three out of four.
You have no reason -- zero, zilch, nada -- to believe that the Founders were referring to anything BUT a well regulated (organized, armed, and accoutered) state Militia. Cite for me just one reference, one quote, one sentence that the Founding Fathers were referring to a local or a national Militia.
Without that reference, what you're doing is called "trolling" -- posting something outrageous in order to get some kind of reaction. I note that you also followed that with an insult, which tells me you have no interest other than to disrupt the thread.
Go away, little man. Or the mods will make you go away.
When it clearly doesn't. In other words, you lied and knew you were lying when you did it.
Correct again. And to what Militia is it referring? A different Militia than what is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 -- you know, the one with officers appointed by each state?
You have no reason -- zero, zilch, nada -- to believe that the Founders were referring to anything BUT a well regulated (organized, armed, and accoutered) state Militia
If you were as half-educated as you pretend, you would know that such issues are discussed in the Federalist Papers ( starting for example, #29). There is no such thing as a "state militia", since by definition the militia is the body of people at arms. A "state militia" would only be that portion of the militia present in a given state (where the body of the Constitution limits the power of the federal government by reserving to the state the election of officers for that portion of the militia).
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it does not secure the right for the "militia" in any case, it secures it for the people.
I note that you also followed that with an insult, which tells me you have no interest other than to disrupt the thread.
I rarely insult others; you genuinely seemed to be a young, ignorant (not stupid, just ignorant, since you don't know what words like "state" or "militia" mean) person because of the arguments you are making. There is nothing shameful about your ignorance, but you should try to correct it before you reach adulthood.