2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

[VanceMack]

Quite plainly, yes, I do doubt that. Unless you count the National Guard as citizens, we have nothing approaching the Patriot militias. Certainly nothing that would, in James Madison's words, be "officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by (state) governments possessing their affections and confidence."

We've already been down that road with the War of 1812. Now we (should) know that it's not a terribly effective plan. Let's face it: we've raised a permanent standing army and placed the militias under government control because it's just the most efficient way to do things. Consequently, we are not prepared in any respect as a populace.

Most certainly. Although limitations of rights are also clearly spelled out in a number of amendments.

Let me offer a counter perspective. There are roughly 2.2 million military retirees right now. There are roughly 22 million former servicmembers (non-retirees). I cant cite the actual number but last time I saw there was something like 13 million former or retired law enforcement officers. That alone is approx 37 million armed citizens with command and tactical experience. There are approx 20 million competitive/sports shooters in the US.

I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order. I also think you overlook the fact that the US was formed and its independence won precisely because of the ability of the civilian soldier to form and fight.

 

[VanceMack]

Military grade at the time, pretty much meant a decent, straight shooting gun. Are you sure you want to stick with that? Because the military uses of a snubnose .38, for example, are pretty limited. Nor would this interpretation cover things like concealed carry.

See...now you are going back to the silly arguments. Military grade firearms that any infantryman could be expected to carry ranges from handguns to fully automatic weapons. Why you would even suggest a limitation to a snubnosed .38 is just...goofy.

 

[sear]

"I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order." VM #401

Our population centers are where rapid organization might best be facilitated.

BUT !!

In a population center like New York City, where millions live & work, private gun ownership is severely restricted.

THEREFORE WHAT ?!

Therefore, where armed citizens reside in the U.S., population densities tend to be low.

So simply organizing into groups could take days to weeks.

The group picking a commander could be tedious, and time-consuming.

Coordinating with adjacent groups, could add weeks to that.

And once all that's accomplished; it would come down to getting some intelligence, some information on enemy troop movements,
and plotting a battle plan to defeat them.

I believe you all are making one of the most classic mistakes in all military history:

preparing to re-fight a previous war.

The most recent foreign attack on the U.S. occurred on 09/11/01.
We lost thousands, and suffered economic loss in the $Billions.

Having a gun, or even a pre-arranged chain of command could not possibly have made a difference.

The next may be waged via the Internet.

They may:
- cripple our power grid
- cause floods by taking control of our water impoundment dams
- cripple our key institutions, stock markets, hospitals, schools, police departments, the way the recent ransomware attacks worked.

Our great Southwest is a cattle-rancher's mecca. But a small team of ISIL agents on mopeds could contaminate our herds with an extremely contagious pathogen like hoof & mouth
and the vast bulk of our herds would have to be destroyed, and buried; placing a huge burden on our food supply. Citizens that have been fat and happy our entire lives
might for the first time be subjected to famine; a phenomenon we've known only as a word in the dictionary until now.

We're critically dependent on our petroleum refineries. And it's hand-to-mouth.

A small commando team of terrorists could easily cripple the U.S. by taking just a few of our major refineries out.
Workers couldn't get to work.
Produce, manufactured goods couldn't get to market.
Police couldn't respond to incidents.
And where would we get our aviation fuel, for our military aircraft.

And you guys are paddiddling about 2A?

You guys are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO LAST TUESDAY !!

WAKE UP !!
It's a new millennium!
It's not as simple as just shooting the guy anymore!

 

[sear]

"I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order." VM #401

Our population centers are where rapid organization might best be facilitated.

BUT !!

In a population center like New York City, where millions live & work, private gun ownership is severely restricted.

THEREFORE WHAT ?!

Therefore, where armed citizens reside in the U.S., population densities tend to be low.

So simply organizing into groups could take days to weeks.

The group picking a commander could be tedious, and time-consuming.

Coordinating with adjacent groups, could add weeks to that.

And once all that's accomplished; it would come down to getting some intelligence, some information on enemy troop movements,
and plotting a battle plan to defeat them.

I believe you all are making one of the most classic mistakes in all military history:

preparing to re-fight a previous war.

The most recent foreign attack on the U.S. occurred on 09/11/01.
We lost thousands, and suffered economic loss in the $Billions.

Having a gun, or even a pre-arranged chain of command could not possibly have made a difference.

The next may be waged via the Internet.

They may:
- cripple our power grid
- cause floods by taking control of our water impoundment dams
- cripple our key institutions, stock markets, hospitals, schools, police departments, the way the recent ransomware attacks worked.

Our great Southwest is a cattle-rancher's mecca. But a small team of ISIL agents on mopeds could contaminate our herds with an extremely contagious pathogen like hoof & mouth
and the vast bulk of our herds would have to be destroyed, and buried; placing a huge burden on our food supply. Citizens that have been fat and happy our entire lives
might for the first time be subjected to famine; a phenomenon we've known only as a word in the dictionary until now.

We're critically dependent on our petroleum refineries. And it's hand-to-mouth.

A small commando team of terrorists could easily cripple the U.S. by taking just a few of our major refineries out.
Workers couldn't get to work.
Produce, manufactured goods couldn't get to market.
Police couldn't respond to incidents.
And where would we get our aviation fuel, for our military aircraft.

And you guys are paddiddling about 2A?

You guys are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO LAST TUESDAY !!

WAKE UP !!
It's a new millennium!
It's not as simple as just shooting the guy anymore!

 

[Aberration]

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

That other equipment wasnt seen as a target of elimination by a tyrannical future government. Thats probably why the 2nd Amendment addressed the right for the people to keep and bear arms and not compass, camping gear, first aid kits, etc.

Yes it was. Which is why we have another Amendment which protects from the confiscation of property without a warrant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bodi]

you're just making that up. Its idiotic how you spew nonsense just designed to bait people. I know you don't know what you are talking about and you don't even believe it. It is undisputed that the founders based the bill of rights on natural law. The first wave of legal commentators (St George Tucker being the most prestigious, with Rawls probably being second) all noted that the bill of rights was designed to guarantee rights the founders believed were endowed by the creator and pre-existed the government. How can anyone with even a rudimentary bit of honesty claim that a natural right only vests once you join a government run organization? So your moronic interpretation of what those words say is both mendacious and it conflicts with the entire underlying premise and foundation that the founders built the constitution and the BOR upon

I know you know this but there might be some noobs who actually take the swill you spew seriously

When a person hurls outvmoronic and idiotic as their defense the argument is over...

 

[VanceMack]

Our population centers are where rapid organization might best be facilitated.

BUT !!

In a population center like New York City, where millions live & work, private gun ownership is severely restricted.

THEREFORE WHAT ?!

Therefore, where armed citizens reside in the U.S., population densities tend to be low.

So simply organizing into groups could take days to weeks.

The group picking a commander could be tedious, and time-consuming.

Coordinating with adjacent groups, could add weeks to that.

And once all that's accomplished; it would come down to getting some intelligence, some information on enemy troop movements,
and plotting a battle plan to defeat them.

I believe you all are making one of the most classic mistakes in all military history:

preparing to re-fight a previous war.

The most recent foreign attack on the U.S. occurred on 09/11/01.
We lost thousands, and suffered economic loss in the $Billions.

Having a gun, or even a pre-arranged chain of command could not possibly have made a difference.

The next may be waged via the Internet.

They may:
- cripple our power grid
- cause floods by taking control of our water impoundment dams
- cripple our key institutions, stock markets, hospitals, schools, police departments, the way the recent ransomware attacks worked.

Our great Southwest is a cattle-rancher's mecca. But a small team of ISIL agents on mopeds could contaminate our herds with an extremely contagious pathogen like hoof & mouth
and the vast bulk of our herds would have to be destroyed, and buried; placing a huge burden on our food supply. Citizens that have been fat and happy our entire lives
might for the first time be subjected to famine; a phenomenon we've known only as a word in the dictionary until now.

We're critically dependent on our petroleum refineries. And it's hand-to-mouth.

A small commando team of terrorists could easily cripple the U.S. by taking just a few of our major refineries out.
Workers couldn't get to work.
Produce, manufactured goods couldn't get to market.
Police couldn't respond to incidents.
And where would we get our aviation fuel, for our military aircraft.

And you guys are paddiddling about 2A?

You guys are SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO LAST TUESDAY !!

WAKE UP !!
It's a new millennium!
It's not as simple as just shooting the guy anymore!

I hope people like you aren't around when problems arise that need solving.

NY state has numerous Guard and Reserve organizations already in place. It would be a simple process of swearing people in, determining capability, and sending folk to work.

We understand that the enemy can exploit various methods to attack the US. That's one of the reasons people work so hard to establish a presence. Former military people understand that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

"I hope people like you aren't around when problems arise that need solving." VM #407

I believe it.
Clearly you're not a professional with expertise in such matters.

"NY state has numerous Guard and Reserve organizations already in place." VM

My point precisely, as I explicitly specified.

"It would be a simple process of swearing people in, determining capability, and sending folk to work."

Oh!
You mean volunteer to join an established military or paramilitary unit, the way I did.

That's fine.
But then, I didn't need a gun to do that.

"We understand that the enemy can exploit various methods to attack the US." VM

That's nice.
But you don't seem to understand that the entire nature of warfare is changing.

"That's one of the reasons people work so hard to establish a presence." VM

"... today there are over 320,000 [U.S.] Army troops alone, deployed in 120 countries overseas. That's more than 60% of the entire [U.S.] Army." NBC-TV Nightly News March 9, '04

"Former military people understand that." VM

Yes.
And we even say so explicitly, as I've done in this thread.

But what some don't seem to understand is that in this new millennium of cyber-war, the entire conflict may be over in as little as 7 minutes; not even enough time for you to dust off your Ruger, and find your camo PJ's.

It takes less than half an hour for an ICBM to launch from enemy vessel or enemy territory to reach key U.S. targets.
The first 5 in our presidential line of succession could be lost in a single nuclear blast.

That and a dozen other new realities were not considered when our 2nd Amendment was written, or ratified.

 

[exoplanet]

you seem to think that the bill of rights were a grant of rights rather than a negative restriction on the government preventing it from interfering with rights the founders accepted and believed were inherent in free citizens since the dawn of time. Exactly what limitations are contained in say the first or second amendments?

I think that they outline precisely where the government cannot interfere and in some cases they even explain where civil rights are not explicitly protected. Certainly there are some rights that are not named, but that's not what we are discussing at the moment. The right to bear arms is named and addressed.

The third amendment says we don't have to quarter soldiers in houses in a time of peace. And in fact, should the government want to quarter soldiers in citizen's homes in a time of war, then the government is obligated to legislate it. Why? Because laws that restrict certain rights are not just the tool of tyranny. The law itself and respect for the rule of law, is important for freedom. A reasonable government can, and in some cases is clearly expected by the framers to legislate limitations on our rights.

The fourth amendment states that we are secure against unreasonable searches. We all well know that we can expect the government to conduct reasonable ones whether an individual wants them to or not. This is a limitation and boundaries have been defined for this right.

The specific purpose of a well regulated militia in the second amendment is intended as a guideline for precisely where government power cannot reach in much the same way that reasonable searches and probable cause are also limitations for where government power cannot reach.

 

[TurtleDude]

When a person hurls outvmoronic and idiotic as their defense the argument is over...

when someone posts stuff they don't even believe in, there never was an argument to begin with

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that they outline precisely where the government cannot interfere and in some cases they even explain where civil rights are not explicitly protected. Certainly there are some rights that are not named, but that's not what we are discussing at the moment. The right to bear arms is named and addressed.

The third amendment says we don't have to quarter soldiers in houses in a time of peace. And in fact, should the government want to quarter soldiers in citizen's homes in a time of war, then the government is obligated to legislate it. Why? Because laws that restrict certain rights are not just the tool of tyranny. The law itself and respect for the rule of law, is important for freedom. A reasonable government can, and in some cases is clearly expected by the framers to legislate limitations on our rights.

The fourth amendment states that we are secure against unreasonable searches. We all well know that we can expect the government to conduct reasonable ones whether an individual wants them to or not. This is a limitation and boundaries have been defined for this right.

The specific purpose of a well regulated militia in the second amendment is intended as a guideline for precisely where government power cannot reach in much the same way that reasonable searches and probable cause are also limitations for where government power cannot reach.

what part of Article One, Section 8 actually properly empowered the federal government to restrict what private citizens own in terms of arms?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

My thoughts.

I believe that it is intended to mean all the people, collectively and/or individually. That is my interpretation.

However, I do know people who believe it means the government's military, and I know these people personally and I also know them to be absolutely sincere in their beliefs. They claim that the words "well regulated" means government sponsored and approved, because, well, who else would 'regulate'?

I wholly disagree with them, but I do not question the sincerity of their position.

There futile hope is that it can be reinterprated to ban all civilian arms.

 

[exoplanet]

Let me offer a counter perspective. There are roughly 2.2 million military retirees right now. There are roughly 22 million former servicmembers (non-retirees). I cant cite the actual number but last time I saw there was something like 13 million former or retired law enforcement officers. That alone is approx 37 million armed citizens with command and tactical experience. There are approx 20 million competitive/sports shooters in the US.

I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order. I also think you overlook the fact that the US was formed and its independence won precisely because of the ability of the civilian soldier to form and fight.

Yeah, there were plenty of military vets during the war of 1812 too. This fantasy was discarded years ago. I mean, yes it's technically feasible, depending upon the threat, but it's pretty effing dumb when we already have an organized militia and a standing army for that very purpose.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Let me offer a counter perspective. There are roughly 2.2 million military retirees right now. There are roughly 22 million former servicmembers (non-retirees). I cant cite the actual number but last time I saw there was something like 13 million former or retired law enforcement officers. That alone is approx 37 million armed citizens with command and tactical experience. There are approx 20 million competitive/sports shooters in the US.

I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order. I also think you overlook the fact that the US was formed and its independence won precisely because of the ability of the civilian soldier to form and fight.

I believe the # is 62 million guns (the registered ones, excluding homemade, guns really are not that hard to make, made a few myself)

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, there were plenty of military vets during the war of 1812 too. This fantasy was discarded years ago. I mean, yes it's technically feasible, depending upon the threat, but it's pretty effing dumb when we already have an organized militia and a standing army for that very purpose.

The Bill of Rights does not turn on whether or not you think it's "dumb."

 

[VanceMack]

I believe the # is 62 million guns (the registered ones, excluding homemade, guns really are not that hard to make, made a few myself)

The estimates are that there are a total of some 300 million legally owned firearms in the hands of some 120 million legal and law abiding citizens. Most firearms arent registered...most states dont have registries.

 

[TurtleDude]

The estimates are that there are a total of some 300 million legally owned firearms in the hands of some 120 million legal and law abiding citizens. Most firearms arent registered...most states dont have registries.

that doesn't even contain all the ones that came into this country non-legally. war trophies from Nam and WWII. a guy I knew, no longer among the living, brought two AKs back from the Nam. This was back when special forces operatives were not having their baggage given too much attention. Where he stashed those things I have no idea. He's dead, probably they will never be found. but with millions of combat vets from WWII and a bunch more from the next several "conflicts" who knows. Then there are all the guns the various criminal organizations have brought into the USA.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

The estimates are that there are a total of some 300 million legally owned firearms in the hands of some 120 million legal and law abiding citizens. Most firearms arent registered...most states dont have registries.

Well, not registered but known to exist.

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, there were plenty of military vets during the war of 1812 too. This fantasy was discarded years ago. I mean, yes it's technically feasible, depending upon the threat, but it's pretty effing dumb when we already have an organized militia and a standing army for that very purpose.

We hae a standing army. True. We have an organized militia. Also true. And we have the largest capable civilian fighting force on the planet. Ist cute you think its 'dumb' to be able to rely on 50+million active and capable civilian firearm owners. The founding fathers disagreed with you. They felt it was not only NOT dumb but crucial to ensure the freedom of this country.

Ive said it numerous times. Is it likely? Do we want to see the day when the civilian militia has to reengage/ No...of course not. Is it possible? You bet. Are we capable? **** yes. Does your opinion that it is 'dumb' to be ablt count on 120 million law abiding citizens to stand as a last line of defense if needed? Not one tiny little bit.

What you HAVE managed to do in this thread is affirm that the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the rights of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. Your snarky comment about it being 'dumb' to be able to count on such a capable fighting force...well...that sounds like you being pissed at having to admit you are wrong. At one point you even went to the claim that 'the people' meant white men. But you backed away from that position pretty quickly.

And since we are exchanging opinions 'dumb' comments...I think its stupid beyond words that you and others continue to try to present the argument that the founding fathers sat down, wrote the Bill of Rights, and meant for 9 of the 10 Amendments to specifically address the rights of 'the people' and the limitations on the government...but tucked into that Bill of Rights, you actually believe that they included the 2nd Amendment as a right meant ONLY for Militia members. or for the state governments to have militias. And you can see that written out and recognize just how stupid you sound when you make such a ridiculous claim...right? Your saving grace though is that you and I both know...you dont honestly believe that. You would rather lie and promote something you KNOW is a lie in the name of promoting an ideological cause. Thats not stupid...its corrupt.

 

[VanceMack]

that doesn't even contain all the ones that came into this country non-legally. war trophies from Nam and WWII. a guy I knew, no longer among the living, brought two AKs back from the Nam. This was back when special forces operatives were not having their baggage given too much attention. Where he stashed those things I have no idea. He's dead, probably they will never be found. but with millions of combat vets from WWII and a bunch more from the next several "conflicts" who knows. Then there are all the guns the various criminal organizations have brought into the USA.

Ive heard it jokingly said that an attacking land force wouldnt make it pass the gangs on either coast.

 

[exoplanet]

We hae a standing army. True. We have an organized militia. Also true. And we have the largest capable civilian fighting force on the planet. Ist cute you think its 'dumb' to be able to rely on 50+million active and capable civilian firearm owners. The founding fathers disagreed with you. They felt it was not only NOT dumb but crucial to ensure the freedom of this country.

And then they thought better of it. In practice, civilians arming themselves are not relied upon in any meaningful sense for the security of the free state and it hasn't been way for a long long time.

Ive said it numerous times. Is it likely? Do we want to see the day when the civilian militia has to reengage/ No...of course not. Is it possible? You bet. Are we capable? **** yes. Does your opinion that it is 'dumb' to be ablt count on 120 million law abiding citizens to stand as a last line of defense if needed? Not one tiny little bit.

If needed they can join/be drafted into the organized militia or the armed forces. That's how it works.

What you HAVE managed to do in this thread is affirm that the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the rights of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. Your snarky comment about it being 'dumb' to be able to count on such a capable fighting force...well...that sounds like you being pissed at having to admit you are wrong.

If you won't listen to me, how about George Washington?
"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows"

It was a nice idea at the time it was written, but it did not stand the test of time.

At one point you even went to the claim that 'the people' meant white men. But you backed away from that position pretty quickly.

Not really. Along with age and gender requirements, I don't think it was addressed.

And since we are exchanging opinions 'dumb' comments...I think its stupid beyond words that you and others continue to try to present the argument that the founding fathers sat down, wrote the Bill of Rights, and meant for 9 of the 10 Amendments to specifically address the rights of 'the people' and the limitations on the government...but tucked into that Bill of Rights, you actually believe that they included the 2nd Amendment as a right meant ONLY for Militia members. or for the state governments to have militias. And you can see that written out and recognize just how stupid you sound when you make such a ridiculous claim...right?

Actually the tenth amendment specifically mentions the powers of the States. The Second Amendment as you appear to interpret it, contains extraneous wording. I think that is ridiculous.

Your saving grace though is that you and I both know...you dont honestly believe that. You would rather lie and promote something you KNOW is a lie in the name of promoting an ideological cause. Thats not stupid...its corrupt.

You spend an awful lot of time ascribing motivations to me without evidence. Try paying more attention to the arguments and addressing those.

 

[VanceMack]

And then they thought better of it. In practice, civilians arming themselves are not relied upon in any meaningful sense for the security of the free state and it hasn't been way for a long long time.

If needed they can join/be drafted into the organized militia or the armed forces. That's how it works.
If you won't listen to me, how about George Washington?
"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows"

It was a nice idea at the time it was written, but it did not stand the test of time.
Not really. Along with age and gender requirements, I don't think it was addressed.

Actually the tenth amendment specifically mentions the powers of the States. The Second Amendment as you appear to interpret it, contains extraneous wording. I think that is ridiculous.

You spend an awful lot of time ascribing motivations to me without evidence. Try paying more attention to the arguments and addressing those.

What you have successfully shown is that in spite of your contempt for the civilian militia, there is zero question as to who the civilian militia is and what the intent of the 2nd Amendment is. You also ignore the numerous times the civilian militia was used for local service while the Army and organized militia were otherwise encumbered. As for the militia as a fighting force...you still want to ignore the reality that we do not merely have a ragtag group of individuals but a capable force of 50+million trained, armed, and capable.

And I'm glad you like Washington as a source.

"Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." And whats more telling is not only his words but his actions...and one thing Washington never attempted was to seize or remove firearms from US citizens.

The 10th Amendment addresses limitations on the federal government. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people.

No matter how hard you try...you cant get around reality.

 

[sear]

"The Second Amendment as you appear to interpret it, contains extraneous wording. I think that is ridiculous." e #421

You're not the only one that thinks so.

But either way 2A is interpreted, it would be silly to claim that 2A is brilliantly, craftily, concisely and clearly worded.
If it were, then what would be the point of this thread?

I haven't seen any thread on the meaning of the free exercise clause, or the commerce clause in these fora.

Nope!

It's 2A that continues to puzzle with its peculiar wording.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're not the only one that thinks so.

But either way 2A is interpreted, it would be silly to claim that 2A is brilliantly, craftily, concisely and clearly worded.
If it were, then what would be the point of this thread?

I haven't seen any thread on the meaning of the free exercise clause, or the commerce clause in these fora.

Nope!

It's 2A that continues to puzzle with its peculiar wording.

actually I don't buy that except if you are talking about ignorant people who have no learning in Constitutional theory or history. The reason why we have arguments is that there is a sizable number of people-from former Justices Stevens, Souter, Burger and others to leaders of the anti gun movement, who despise the fact that the founders did NOT INTEND AT ALL for the federal government to have ANY powers as to what firearms or other individual weapons private citizens could own or possess. these individuals pretended that there were alternative and valid interpretations of the second amendment and used their office or standing to try to confuse the issue.

 

[ttwtt78640]

actually I don't buy that except if you are talking about ignorant people who have no learning in Constitutional theory or history. The reason why we have arguments is that there is a sizable number of people-from former Justices Stevens, Souter, Burger and others to leaders of the anti gun movement, who despise the fact that the founders did NOT INTEND AT ALL for the federal government to have ANY powers as to what firearms or other individual weapons private citizens could own or possess. these individuals pretended that there were alternative and valid interpretations of the second amendment and used their office or standing to try to confuse the issue.

The 2A goes even further than that - rather than say "congress shall pass no law to..." (implying only a federal prohibition) it guarantees "the right of the people to..." from being infringed by any level of government.