I try not to read meanings into the us constitution so
when it clearly states that ...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
it means that each and every free state in the union
has a right to keep a well regulated militia for security of the free state.
and it also clearly states that each us citizen has the
right to keep and bear arms.
and shall not be infringed.
is exactly what it means.
granted you don't need full automatic weapons and large capacity magazines to hunt game animals with but the right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting , hunting is just the way people used to provide food for their families.
I have never heard of an instance where an army consisting of game animals attacked the free peoples of a state and threatened that states security.
hunting weapons and weapons for the defense of a free state are
completely different weapons.
and the military type weapons designed for the military should not be used for hunting likewise a us citizen in his states militia should not be expected by his state to bring hunting weapons to the fight when his state expects a well regulated state militia as provided for in the us constitution to be present at the fight .
I will never be a supreme court judge either because I
don't read things into the wording of the us constitution
or its amendments.
to me it clearly gives power to the people of each state to have a well
regulated militia , and it clearly gives each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.
and the well regulated means that the arms that a citizen
can own and bear should be comparable to the arms that the
military keeps and bears to defend the nation against invasion
of a foreign power , likewise each state should have its own militia with weapons that are comparable to the weapons of the us military should one free state ever need to defend itself from another free state or should one free state ever need to defend its self from the us military.
or groups of free states need to defend their states from an invading foreign power or from a us government of tyrants that have requested foreign powers step in and intervene on behalf of their us government of tyrants because the us military refuses to kill or harm us citizens.
there are states that have a non federally connected state militia and they are called state defense forces (SDF) but
congress does not seem to think that the us constitution really means much because it refuses to improve the poor
( not well regulated ) condition of the SDF's by ignoring bills that could have improved the condition of the state defence forces or state militia's in the us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force Several bills have been unsuccessfully introduced in Congress since the early 1990s seeking to improve the readiness of state defense forces. The most recent, H.R. 206, introduced in 2009 by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, would have allowed the U.S. Secretary of Defense to transfer surplus U.S. military equipment to state defense forces. Co-sponsors of the bill included Jim Marshall and Frank Wolf. Congress took no action on the measure before adjourning.[
the page describes how the federal government may under certain circumstances take ownership or control of these state defense forces and I don't think that there should be any ability of the federal government to control any measure of these state defense forces as it may be the federal government itself that these forces need to defend against so the ownership and full control of these state defense forces should remain in the state of residence of the state defense force.
however the funding of these non federally connected state militia should be provided by both the federal government and the state governments as both the union and the state would be a benefactor in the event of an invasion by a foreign power.
