[ctdonath2]

If the answer is no, and the right of the individual is the same whether or not he is affiliated with a state-regulated militia, then the question is improperly formulated because it specifies a condition which is not relevant.

Logic doesn't quite work that way.

That a line was drawn in this question simply avoids questions that are relevant on that side of the line but not this side. The issue at hand plainly does NOT involve a state-regulated militia, and questions regarding a state-regulated militia are not relevant.

The specified condition may indeed not be relevant; so long as the question is built on that condition, questions of relevancy of that condition are not important to the issue at hand and can be avoided.

[gridlock]

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that Joe Blow is not affiliated with a state-regulated militia, because there is no such thing as state-regulated militias?