Gun Control & RKBA

guru: It is ridiculous to argue the "right" to keep and bear arms is possessed only by those citizens enrolled in the militia

So ridiculous it's been argued for 230 years as either full or militia centric to original intent in 1791, and until scalia via heller subverted 2ndA the militia rkba was largely accepted as the proper interpretation of original intent.
You are a pro gun sophist.
Weasel is kinda synonymous with sophistry.

Below, read what guru quoted from presser in his preceding post, and note the ellipses, the 3 dots after 'arms,', indicating a partial quote with more to come. Guru clipped the sentence by inserting 3 dot ellipses for the sentence remainder:

guru above: ... the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, . . . "

Leads readers to believe states could not prohibit the people from gun rights, eh?
Guru clipped off the remaining part of the sentence, quelle surprise, for it debunked his own argument.
Here is the fuller sentence in context:

scotus 1886 presser quote: ... the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252

Guru evidently does not understand the diff between 'public security' and a 'collective duty to the general govt', from individual gun ownership. Or was guru citing a far right wing gun source? he was disinclined from posting links.