Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.
Incorrect. The Constitution never defines the term "militia."
By the way, the Colorado Constitution wasn't ratified until 1876. I'm not sure when Article XVII was ratified, it could have been even later.
...and yet again, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear they can't disarm them. Unless you believe that a militia that is ordered to surrender all its weapons is an example of a "well-regulated militia."
Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to
arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.
sigh... Why did I expect you to actually answer the question?
Yet again: If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms, it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And... that is
not how it is written.
No "sufficient" conditions were mentioned to justify freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protections from unreasonable search, due process, or any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
And it's not like the Constitution is full of superfluous language. It's downright parsimonious.
So... If the need for a well-regulated militia was merely a "sufficient" reason to prevent the federal government from excessively regulating militias, then there would be no need whatsoever to include that language. And yet, there it is... and you can't explain why.
What am I supposed to look for? They were only temporary acts, whose authority only lasted 2 years. It doesn't say the President can disarm or disband state militias. Neither one defines militias, beyond saying that "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" ages 18-45 are in one.
I'm saying that you don't understand slave patrols.
They weren't ad hoc groups that were summoned at a moment's notice by the sheriff. They were organized proto-police forces that operated on a regular basis, and specialized in keeping slaves in line. In many cases, such as Virginia, slave patrols were... wait for it... militias ordered to patrol by the local or state government. And again, there were so many of those white 18-45 year olds actively working in the slave patrols in South Carolina, that the state could barely contribute any militiamen to the American Revolution.
Catholics in England did not have the right to bear arms. Did that mean they also lacked the right of self-defense?
Today, French citizens do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. Does that mean they also lack the right of self-defense?
Anyway. The "defense" they were referring to in those amendments was defending
the people and
the state, not the individual -- unless you believe that militias were also law enforcement officers. (Hint: They weren't.)
lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."