I think its so sad its almost funny, for a few reasons:
1. He either thinks the militia means the armed forces, in which case, that would make his version of 2A redundant with the rest of the COTUS
2. Or he means organized -federal- "militia" e.g. National guard, but that would be redundant due to that now being part of the standing army
3. Or he means state organized militia, which I doubt, as it would conflict with 10AM, and open the door for any state to simply adopt the original definition of militia and thus -really- open the door to fun times with machine guns.
Also, it further strikes me because he believes that's how it was -originally- meant (militia acts, federalist papers, debates on ratification, etc notwithstanding) which is REALLY stretching, as:
1. Why would there need to be a law preventing congress from infringing on its right to have an armed armed forces? Given that that power is already constitutionally reserved, it would mean that his 2A basically would mean congress can't disarm the military it raised and paid for?
2. It would put 2A at odds with virtually the entirety of the rest of the bill of rights, mainly 1,3,4,5,6,7,8, and by definition 9,10. As the prevention of abrogation of those rights isn't dependent on some defined government service.
Especially 3, that is hilarious. Like you would only be protected from having to quarter soldiers if you were already a soldier? Isn't that a paradox?
That's why I think any of the militia arguments are pretty much stupid. At no point in any part of the BoR or the rest of the constitution are any powers, preventions, or rights contingent on -anything- other than citizenship (well, with the exception of the limits on who can become president)
