[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by TommygunNG

Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.
<snip>
The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms.
<snip>
"[The "official militia rifle"] would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.""

What you're saying here quite specifically is that, in your scheme, the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment would be those to be used for militia purposes; hence, those owned by members of the unorganized militia.

With me so far? I'm just paraphrasing your own statements.

There are two ways this could work:

First, these weapons (the only ones protected by the Second Amendment) would be available only to persons who currently make up the unorganized militia. As women who are not members of the National Guard are excluded from the legal definition of the unorganized militia, along with men aged 45 and over, these two classes would no longer have any rights under the Second Amendment. Their ability to arm themselves would no longer be a right, but a privilege.

Second: the only way around this would be to expand the unorganized militia to include women (old, young, and in between) and older men. But the only modern purpose of the unorganized militia is to define a pool of citizens who may be called up for military service; this is explicit in the statute I quoted above, 10 USC Sec. 311.

Is it really sensible, or practical, to include (for example) your grandparents in this pool? I don't think so, and I don't think those in charge of the military would, either.

So you'd deny the right to bear arms in self-defense to the very people who need it the most: those least able to defend themselves if they are unarmed.

Oh, and just an aside for whatever mental case said I was disarming women, etc.: The purpose is the militia, but the right is to "the people". My ideas in no way disarm women or anyone else (save cuckoo clocks and criminals). Quite the opposite, all can contribute in some way.

This is just waffling. You can't have it both ways. You're proposing specific changes to the laws governing who can own weapons under the Second Amendment, based on "militia purposes." If you want to do that, you need to acknowledge the current laws and their implications, and explain how the changes you want would either mesh with those laws, or alter them.

As I said, it was an expression of philosophy and vision more than a legal analysis.

This is a cop-out, pure and simple. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the supreme philosophy.

[Insert haiku here.]