You miss the point that "a militia necessary for the security of a free state" by definition can no longer be part of said state if the state is no longer free and/or threatening the freedom of the people. So no, they are not unconstitutional nor part of the state once the aforementioned breaks the contract with them and goes rogue against the people's freedoms. Remember this was written on the heels of having overthrown autocratic rule and citizen's militias having played a pivotal role in the revolution. My history's fuzzy but I'm sure the Brits. likely tried to disarm the citizenry and as such the colonists realized the value of not complying and putting it on paper. It also flies in the face of every revolution by people worldwide who took arms to overthrow their oppressors (militias being "no longer of the state"). Yes, the Jan 6th yahoos would have considered themselves a constitutional militia because their delusion was such that a legislative coup was occurring. That or they intentionally wanted to overthrow the gov. in favor of autocratic rule. A militia need not be on the right side of history, especially if mass psychosis drives the mob. However by definition, since no such legislative coup occurred, they are rightfully called seditionists because no matter what kool-aid they were drinking, the reality was that the state was not going rogue or autocratic.
I wasn't able to follow your full meaning in the above, but that's Ok. Perhaps my posts were a bit too nuanced to be easily understood. I apologize if that's the case. Pages 22-25 are enlightening with regard to militias if that is of any interest. The discussion I'm referring to begins after "2. The Prefatory Clause." on Pg 22. in the Scalia Opinion. I'll repeat here these two sentences [edited for better clarity] from my earlier post #25: After the Constitution was ratified, the only interpretation of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment that makes sense is that "militia" there means a militia protective of the [union of states]. The word "Militia" in the Constitution's Second Amendment can not possibly mean a militia formed to fight against the Federal Government. That said, the fools that showed up at the Capital on Jan 6th can be called a militia of sorts having been organized and armed. But if they are a militia, they are certainly an illegal extra-constitutional one. That is not the kind of militia mentioned in our second Amendment. If I could understand more fully your post, I'm quite sure I'd agree with much of it, at least more than I agreed with Scalia's excision of the prefatory clause from the rest of the Amendment. If you leave the prefatory clause attached, as he should have, than it is quite clear that the Amendment taken in its entirety was speaking to the right to keep and bear arms in conjunction with service in a militia. Absent the prefatory clause, however the Amendment becomes unlimited in scope. It is hard for the me to believe that's what was intended.
I may be misremembering the DC Heller decision but the bolded sounds like we're basically in agreement. I think I remembered Scalia making the argument wording made it unclear and as such open to their clarification that the "militia" part was separate from the "the right of the people" which I disagree with.
%% I learned that as a kid; + i trust the private sector much more than any gov infringement. THE 10 commandments of gun safety are not that complicated. Lawful gun owners have so few accidents , thank God . OUR southern state has a required hunter safety course , with 10 commandments; its age related . Bottom line\ look @ hi crime/ hi taxes /hi gun regs , in NY, CA, Chicago ................ Good points on live fire {+wear ear muffs-LOL]
Chicago and NY might have gun violence but so do the suburbs nad country with mass gun shootings. Just because more people die in Chicago does not make it a Chicago issue. All of these guns are legally made but then get sent out into the world with no care or worry about who buys them, who carries them, or who uses them. There is no standardized license, registration or control system so a lot of guns end up in the hands of unstable people or get into the black market. Imagine how crime could be fought if a gun used in a crime was foudn to be registered to someone who then admits selling it illegally. We have records of cars, houses, etc.. licenses for various things and requirements for safety in many areas but guns we go hands off because of some misconceived notion of how hte constitution works. The goal is not to make gun ownership difficult, just to make gun owners responsible. Given all the guns leglaly bought but ending up in the hands of children or murderers means that there is a lack of responsibility in how guns are bought owned and transferred. I can find out who owned my house since it was built and how much they paid but a gun can be sold at a show with no records at times.
The private sector led to houses being built with asbestos and lead pipes, spoiled land, air and water, ponzi schemes, drinking and driving, smoking everywhere just to name a few. Believe it or not, sometimes a little government isnt a bad thing.
%% Exactly; + lead pipes just goes to show you a little gov can be a good thing. Depending on big gov for water?? LOL; for water,, i prefer prayer + private sector. No wonder private sector bottled water chartt in WSJ = giant uptrend better than Coke/mountain Dew /yahoo