[xsrdx]

Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

A novel argument, but in reality by reserving the RKBA to the authority of the state government you are de facto infringing on the peoples right.

Can't have it both ways; your argument loses steam when you say it's ok for the state gov't to infringe away.

The "militia" was citizens with guns in their homes, not just armories; led by community leaders, not government agents.

Mason and Monroe did not envision the militia as a permanent standing army like the national guard is today, nor did they advocate ANY infringement -state, federal or otherwise - on the people's RKBA.

[robertpaulsen]

You trying to smoosh everything together -- milita, individual, state, federal -- and say the second amendment protects all weapons for all persons for all uses from infringement by all levels of government; federal state and local.

With that as a starting point, I don't know how to respond and even where to begin.

So I won't.