No: I asked whether you had an argument against what I posted, and you quoted. For example, do you object to my claim that the issue of mass incarceration of black men, currently on the table and with broad public support for significant changes, offers a way for gun violence opponents to make gains in reducing gun violence ? It has dozens of them. It also has a lot of military trained civilians with suitable weapons and gear at home, available for call at need. Again: I could raise a competent, well armed, county militia from my home county in 48 hours. That is exactly the situation referred to as "necessary to the security of a free State" in the Constitution. No. Billy, you are wrong. In error. You have a mistaken idea of what a militia was and is, what the word meant and means. This causes you to misunderstand the 2nd Amerndment. Not a single American militia in 1786 fit your description. None since have either. Very few militia anywhere, at any time, have been organized as the Swiss are now - the Swiss have almost converted their militia to an army, a standing military force commanded and supplied and in the pay of the State, and not a militia at all. They have a professional military command for their "militia", on full time duty, hired and governed and equipped and trained and paid by the State. The Swiss as "militia" are outliers. The writers of the Constitution did not know of a single militia anywhere organized as the Swiss are today. They were referring to ordinary militia, such as were common then, such as the word meant - the ones that had fought in the Revolutionary War, the ones fighting at that very time against various Red nations and tribes, British and French and Spanish backed frontier raiders, and the like. And this is all both simple and obvious. What is the motive for trying to muddle the language of the 2nd Amendment in that strange manner? It's completely unnecessary, for starters: America right now is a borderline free fire zone - nowhere near the limitations on gun control imposed by the Constitution. Not enough, by my guess. I bet 1.9 million votes in key States - from the endorsement - had more clout.