[robertpaulsen]

"It only makes no sense because you claim that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming state militias"

I have stated that the majority of the lower federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming individuals who comprise the state militias.

"It the Second Amendment acts as a bar to federal infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would prohibit the federal government from disarming the federal militia."

The federal militia? The second amendment says nothing about a federal militia. You're mixing apples and oranges.

Your problem is that we no longer have "well regulated state militias", and you're trying to force-fit and twist the meaning of the second amendment to what we do have today. It doesn't work that way.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "The federal militia? The second amendment says nothing about a federal militia. You're mixing apples and oranges. "

It says "well-regulated Militia". It does not say "state Militia". There was no requirement in US vs Miller that Miller be a member of a state militia. Miller was one of the people protected by the Second Amendment. The arms of the people are the arms which will always be available to the Militia, regardless of tyrannical governments.