Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
I personally think the limit of Federal Power to regulate arms is limited by the States rights to raise Militia's from the populace. However, I can see the US Sup. Ct. holding that that the State may actually have to supply the weapon to the citizen soldier. If so, private ownership can be totally banned.

Yes, but at the time of the Spanish-American War the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's right to federalize the state militias into the National Guard. This decision effectively passed control, and there by ownership of the state militias to the Federal government. At the time opponents to the formation argued that the formation of the National Guard effectively torpedoed the 2nd amendment. Proponents argued that without unity in training, equipage, and command the state militias were nigh unto worthless in modern warfare and hence their prior condition, i.e., as seperately trained, equipped and led state armies, was in fact detrimental to their mission as expressed in the 2nd amendment, guarding the security of a free people.

Prior to the Spanish-American War whenever the United States had gone to war the bulk of its army units had been state militia units. There had been problems with standardization and quality of training, equipage, and command. Those who knew the truth behind the headlines during the war understood that these problems nearly cost the United States humiliating defeats at the hands of a smaller, less wealthy, less industrialized country, Spain.

So what I'm saying is that the states no longer have the right to have their own militias. In fact, the second amendment was quietly overturned at the beginning of the twentieth century. Let me also assure you that if Mr. Heston wants a doctor in attendance at his death bed he bloody well better drop that d**n gun first because there is absolutely nothing in the Hypocratic oath that requires me or my kind to render aid under such conditions!

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, do you have a cite or case name for that opinion?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, do you have a cite or case name for that opinion?

Nope, I read about it a long time ago. That's the curse of approaching senior citizenship. Try searching the history of the National Guard.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rasbelin

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

We're not lurking, we're posting!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
"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."

I see the first part of that sentence as a qualifying term. It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms.

It's an explanatory phrase, not a condition or a qualifying term. There is no question in the author's mind that this is true, nor any suggestion that this could change. There is no "If".

Also, to those who think that States are free to ban private ownership of arms (Ned), why? Can states constitutionally outlaw other freedoms which are guaranteed to the People in the U.S. constitution?

[Capt Dizle]

I haven't read this thread. It's too long and there is bound to be some Floyd in it I can do without.

American citizens have to retain weaponry in order to defend itself against the Federal government. As well as State and local governments.

The definition of Police State is a nation with its citizens unarmed.

Remember that Hitler came to power with a minority of the popular vote and quickly suspended democracy. He was able to do so because his brownshirts had control of the streets.

Americans must remain capable of denying tyrants control of the streets. And we are very nearly unable to do that now.

[korn469]

gsmoove23

I don't understand what that table proves. No one here is saying that gun crimes are solely because of the availability of weapons. It also seems to be affected by higher population densities, as most crimes are. That table shows countries with very low population densities having less crime. Understandable. Yet have a look at the UK and Japan. Highly urban, highly populated, yet look at the amount of gun crimes per million. The UK also has more then its share of determined criminals yet very low gun crimes. That table seems to prove my point. And the only country to have a higher percentage of gun ownership is Finland, c'mon.

United States 41.0% 62.4 29.1
Northern Ireland 8.4% 35.5 ?
Belgium 16.6% 8.7 336.8
Finland 50.0% 8.7 15.4
Canada 26.0% 6.0 3.2
Australia 16.0% 5.6 2.5
France 22.6% 5.5 109.3
Switzerland 27.2% 4.6 176.8
Norway 32.0% 3.6 14.0
Netherlands 1.9% 2.7 386.9
New Zealand 20.0% 2.2 14.5
Germany 8.9% 2.1 233.2
Spain 13.1% 1.9 79.4
United Kingdom 4.0% 1.3 244.2
Japan 0.6% 0.3 336.1

here is the table organized by gun homicide rates from highest to lowest, the first number is gun ownership rates, the second number is gun homicide rates, and the third number is population density from this site:
http://www.hhs.se/personal/suzuki/o-English/po02.html

if someone has a statistics program, maybe they could make two scatter plots, both of them using gun homicide rates as the independent factor, the first one would be gun homicides and gun ownership rates, and the second would be gun homicides and population density, but out of the top five it looks like only belgium has a high population density

However, the idea of a 3-day waiting period seems reasonable IF the amount of government intrusion allowed and the requirments for restriction are specified by the law and not left up to personal interpretation by authorities.

i don't get the idea of a 3 day waiting period at all, if you can do all of the checks you need in an hour why make the person wait 3 days? if you are planning on killing someone then you going to take the waiting period into account, if you are killing somebody in the heat of passion you aren't going to goto the gun shop to begin with

I have to stress that your example seems extremely dangerous. To put something in front of a child and tell them not to touch it is asking them to touch it. While some children might be good and listen to this others will rebel or simply learn through their own mistakes instead of taking an adults word for it. I think this person was extremely irresponsible and simply blessed with sensible and intelligent children. A rarity.

possibly, but i bet if we did some research on gun ownership percentages, and accident rates on the frontier from like 1860-1900 i bet that even with lots of unsecured loaded guns around, that accident rates probably weren't that much higher, because the children were accustomized to the weapons, i was really young when i shot my first shot gun and after that any enthusiasm i may of had to go grab a gun was certainly curbed, when handled in a proper way guns are no more dangerous than cars

A large amount of gun crimes are not committed by determined criminals. Many are crimes of passion, many are unplanned or happen in the spur of the moment, where procuring a gun illegally would be difficult to do within the time frame. Determined criminals will find guns certainly and even some not so determined criminals, but many others won't have the contacts the knowledge or the streetwise to find guns illegally.

that proves my point exactly! all of the gun crimes committed by non determined criminals are gun crimes in which the person could possess the weapon in a legal way, so short of basically banning guns, gun control has no effect on these crimes, and like you said gun control laws have no effect on determined criminals, so basically gun control doesn't stop any type of criminal at all, and that is why gun control is a failure to me

according to the fbi these are the factors in crimes

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/contents.pdf

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial,
judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

so it seems like there are many ways of reducing crime without turning to gun control laws which are questionable both from a constitutional stance and a an actual effectivness stance

double the number of police officers would probably have a much greater impact on crime than the same number of police officers enforcing twice the number of laws

[Capt Dizle]

I think its' just ignorance that feeds the gun control fire. People really do seem to think that guns are manufactured with some hidden attribute that enables them to override the will of their human owners.

[korn469]

I think its' just ignorance that feeds the gun control fire. People really do seem to think that guns are manufactured with some hidden attribute that enables them to override the will of their human owners

i agree, i mean if your stupid there is all kinda of ways of killing yourself accidently with everyday household items besides guns

[Capt Dizle]

Hmm, well, a few accidental deaths and some limited shooting sprees are small prices to pay for the freedom of an entire country.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Hmm, well, a few accidental deaths and some limited shooting sprees are small prices to pay for the freedom of an entire country.

How is it that gun ownership makes the entire country free?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander


Also, to those who think that States are free to ban private ownership of arms (Ned), why? Can states constitutionally outlaw other freedoms which are guaranteed to the People in the U.S. constitution?

Sikander, the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to the states. To the extent that a right protected by the Bill of Rights is an individual right, it may apply to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment. There are a number of Supreme Court cases that have addressed individual of the Bill of Rights and have decided that those rights are protected by the Fourteenth amendment. Among these of course the rights protected by the First and the Fifth Amendment's.

If the Second Amendment is a fundamental right of the people and not a right of the states, I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hold that it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It would then limit the right of the states to ban the keeping and bearing of arms. But no case that I know of has held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through Fourteenth Amendment.

If in contrast, the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right of the states to form Militias, it would not apply to Fourteenth Amendment because it is not an a fundamental right of the people that has to be protected against infringement by state action.

As I have said before, I believe the amendment's purpose is to protect the right of the states to form Militias. For this reason, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States can, therefore, ban the keeping and bearing of arms.

I would be interested in reading the case cited by Dr. Strangelove, as it seems to equate "State" in the amendment to the "United States" and not to the "States." This is a fundamental point and quite at odds with the history of the Second Amendment cited by the Ninth Circuit.

[Ned]

This from Presser v. State of Illinios, 1886, cinches my argument -- at least until the Supremes decide whether the right is the right of the states or of the people.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' "

[Ned]

From the same case:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, 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 [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

[Ned]

From US v. Miller (1939)

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[Ramo]

As I have said before, I believe the amendment's purpose is to protect the right of the states to form Militias.

*Sigh* That's clearly not its purpose, and I just explained precisely why.

Besides, why would it possibly defend the right of US states to form militias, when they hadn't done so until nearly a century after that Amendment was drafted with the creation of the National Guards?

I would be interested in reading the case cited by Dr. Strangelove, as it seems to equate "State" in the amendment to the "United States" and not to the "States." This is a fundamental point and quite at odds with the history of the Second Amendment cited by the Ninth Circuit.

It's quite obvious when you look at it. For instance, in the 2nd it says, "a [...] State," a reference to a non-specific state, instead of for instance "the States" as in the 9th Amendment.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
From the same case:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, 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."

Ironically, studies done by the army back befroe WWII showed that in general recruits who had experience with using guns as civilians did worse with army training than recruits who had no experience. They came to the conclusion that bad habits acquired during unsupervised civilian training impeded army training. Thus it appears that the keeping and bearing of arms by civilians is not a useful resource for maintaining public security and actually hampers the performance of their duty to the general government.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


How is it that gun ownership makes the entire country free?

People are free only when they are able to defend themselves. The moment they depend on government they are no longer free. It's a kind of oppression by concession.

While we must depend on society for commerce and community and should yield to law and order, and must be thankful for the military provided for the national defense, individual freedom is never more than a heartbeat from threat and never secured by anything less than our willingness to defend ourselves.

This is what America is all about. Individuals who consent.

[Capt Dizle]

I want to tell you something about America. America has a special resource, a national treasure. It's people are different from all the people in the rest of the world.

I am sure some of you believe in natural selection. The strong survive. The weak perish.

Think of Nazi Germany and the millions who were exterminated by the racist Hitler. Most of them died of starvation or were killed like rats. Some of them died resisting and there were some who resisted and escaped.

People like that are special. Those who refuse to go softly into the night. All throughout its history people have flocked to America for freedom, while others have settled for less.

America is strong because its people are strong. Americans are not necessarilly better than people from other nations, but as a whole, Americans are individualists and that makes us a special breed. And you won't get our guns until you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

So debate the constitution all you want. It's a moot point.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


People are free only when they are able to defend themselves. The moment they depend on government they are no longer free. It's a kind of oppression by concession.

While we must depend on society for commerce and community and should yield to law and order, and must be thankful for the military provided for the national defense, individual freedom is never more than a heartbeat from threat and never secured by anything less than our willingness to defend ourselves.

This is what America is all about. Individuals who consent.

Please give me an example of any instance in the past 220 years of citizens sucessfully defending themselves from oppression by the US government by the use of arms. I am of course excluding any armed conflict between the US government and native americans.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I want to tell you something about America. America has a special resource, a national treasure. It's people are different from all the people in the rest of the world.

I am sure some of you believe in natural selection. The strong survive. The weak perish.

Think of Nazi Germany and the millions who were exterminated by the racist Hitler. Most of them died of starvation or were killed like rats. Some of them died resisting and there were some who resisted and escaped.

People like that are special. Those who refuse to go softly into the night. All throughout its history people have flocked to America for freedom, while others have settled for less.

America is strong because its people are strong. Americans are not necessarilly better than people from other nations, but as a whole, Americans are individualists and that makes us a special breed. And you won't get our guns until you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

So debate the constitution all you want. It's a moot point.

The US hasn't had a serious threat with a prayer's chance of succeeding since the War of 1812. That's what kept us strong.

Like I said before, if you want to have your gun with you on your deathbed you can forget about having me at your side to tend to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

An opinion written before the 14th Amendment was applied to the states. In 1886, the 1st Amendment prohibited ONLY Congress and not the states. States had state religions before the application of the 14th to the states.

We've obviously come a long way.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Please give me an example of any instance in the past 220 years of citizens sucessfully defending themselves from oppression by the US government by the use of arms. I am of course excluding any armed conflict between the US government and native americans.

Private gun ownership works kinda like MAD, Doc. No one is crazy enough to try to pull the shades on the American public because we have guns and we will use them.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Private gun ownership works kinda like MAD, Doc. No one is crazy enough to try to pull the shades on the American public because we have guns and we will use them.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy that arguement for a second. If the government, fully backed by the military, wanted to lay down authoritarian rule in the US, the private citizens with guns wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything about it. Your freedom, democracy and independence is upheld for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is a general notion - confirmed with regular elections and a history of democracy - that that is way the country will be governed. In that regard, you are no different from Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zeland, etc. who have known democracy and freedom for large periods of time, but who do not claim that the very freedom is guaranteed by an armed populace.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Private gun ownership works kinda like MAD, Doc. No one is crazy enough to try to pull the shades on the American public because we have guns and we will use them.

There actually were at least two attempts to overthrow the US government in the early days of the republic. One was foiled by a stirring speech given by George Washington, the other by Federal troops dispatched in a timely manner on the warning of an informer.

One could also consider the Civil War. Had the southern states not had their own militias the United States government might have brought the situation under control before nearly one million men were killed. See? Private ownership of guns can actually foster tyranny! Yep, that's right. I consider the Confederate States of America, a government formed to ensure the continual enslavement of black people, a tyrannical government.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

Do you honestly think that the founding fathers would be against a licensing program for guns?

Yes, if they wanted that power, they would have put it in the Constitution.

In order to get a driver's license, you must prove you can drive with a degree of responsibility.

The Founders did not license vehicles of any kind, using what more modern politicians have done to allege what the Founders would have done is illogical. Btw, we only license motor vehicles for use on PUBLIC roads. Licensing guns for use on PRIVATE land based on regulations concerning public land is communistic.

With a pilot's license, you need to prove you are responsible enough to handle a plane because the lives of hundreds depend on you.

Another example confusing public and private property and another example of using the actions of modern politicians to allege the intent of the Founders.

Likewise, with owning a gun, a tool which you effectively control the lives and safety of many people; WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HAVING TO PROVE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO OWN ONE?!!

What is wrong? It's unconstitutional for one. Would you support IQ tests for voters? How can we be sure they are responsible enough to vote? And given the fact that governments have proven themselves to be much more murderous than private individuals, and since governments have much more control over the lives and safety of people, voting should have the strictest limits, true? How many times have tyrants sought to disarm the people they eventually wanted to slaughter? And this disarming of the people was often preceded by "licensing" so the tyrants knew who had the guns. In NY city, they first "licensed" guns, then banned them.

Forgive the caps, but we've debated this issue before and I just want to hear how you explain what is wrong with this?

Why do I need your permission to own a gun for my defense? Are you going to rush over and protect me when someone invades my home? If you disarm me because you've decided I'm not responsible enough to own a gun and my family is murdered by an invader, can I sue the **** out of you for not protecting my family?

Do you understand the lethality of guns?

Burglars sure do, that's why they tend to avoid houses occupied by people armed with guns.

Would you want dangerous people owning them?

Dangerous to whom? How will licensing my gun (if I'm deemed "responsible" enough to have one, prevent dangerous people from having guns? Why do you think you can walk downtown and buy illegal drugs? "Licensing" has done nothing to stem drug use, so why do you think licensing guns will do what you want?

How can you be against a licensing program which restricts dangerous people from owning guns?

Simple, licensing doesn't restrict dangerous people from owning guns any more than banning drugs reduced drug consumption.

The other thing I want to clarify is your stance on the legality of different types of firearms. Of the following types of weapons, what should be legal and what shouldn't be?

Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Hunting rifles/Shotguns
Handguns
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons

All of the above except the last which cannot be used in self-defense. But if you can magically make a nuke appear in your home without using public property, then you have the right to own the nuke or receive just compensation from government under the eminent domain power.

I think everything except Hunting Rifles/Shotguns and Handguns should be illegal to the general public.

Then Floyd's assertion that you don't support the Constitution is true. But from where did you derive this authority to decide what the rest of us can own?

Handguns should only be legal in rural areas.

Then you should be held accountable for the crimes against the people you've disarmed. I see no difference between you and a person who actively prevents the sick from buying the medicines they need to live.

Carrying a concealed weapon should require a different type of permit which requires the completion of a weapons training/safety course... if at all.

On public property? That's a different matter.

I think all guns should have fingerprint technology so that only the registered owner(s) should be able to use them.

You going to pay for this? I didn't think so.

My logic for this approach is simple
1) The founding Fathers did not take into account the evolution of firearms in this Amendment

You think they were imbeciles? Of course they understood the concept of invention, some of them were inventors! "Arms" in their day meant whatever handheld weaponry was employed by the military/militia.

2) They did not say that there could not be any type of licensing program... they left the wording vague and open to interpretation because they realized that situations in the future would be different from their own time...

You are now using the absence of a power to allege the existence of the power, that isn't logical. Read the 10th Amendment, it re-affirms that the Constitution is a grant of specified powers, not a blank slate to exercise any power not mentioned.

You have to hand it to the framers of the Constitution.

You seem to think they were idiots.

They were smart enough to realize that the country would not always be a collection of states along the Eastern seaboard.

Where did they realise the country would be anything more than a collection of states with or without westward expansion?

They left a lot of room for interpretation so that future generations of government leaders could make responsible decisions on any issues, specifically ones they could not possibly imagine.

Yup, that's why the Constitution they wrote included a process for amending it. If you want to ban or license guns, work to amend the Constitution. But don't tell us you support the Constitution while trying to subvert it via the voting booth.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I'm sorry, but I can't buy that arguement for a second. If the government, fully backed by the military, wanted to lay down authoritarian rule in the US, the private citizens with guns wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything about it. Your freedom, democracy and independence is upheld for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is a general notion - confirmed with regular elections and a history of democracy - that that is way the country will be governed. In that regard, you are no different from Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zeland, etc. who have known democracy and freedom for large periods of time, but who do not claim that the very freedom is guaranteed by an armed populace.

You put a convienent if in there. Fully backed by the military. Its one thing to enforce authoritarian rule against an unarmed populace and quite another to kill your fathers and cousins. Which is what the teenagers and young adults that comprise our military would have to do? And they never would.

Its the willingness to take up arms that makes us free. And the refusal to give them up that keeps us able to resist.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

An opinion written before the 14th Amendment was applied to the states. In 1886, the 1st Amendment prohibited ONLY Congress and not the states. States had state religions before the application of the 14th to the states.

We've obviously come a long way.

Imran, there are at least a twenty cases that have cited Presser for the proposition that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States - through the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise. These cases run through the sixties.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


*Sigh* That's clearly not its purpose, and I just explained precisely why.

Besides, why would it possibly defend the right of US states to form militias, when they hadn't done so until nearly a century after that Amendment was drafted with the creation of the National Guards?

Actually, the Presser decision (language quoted above) seems to indicate that States (read cities as well) cannot ban the keeping and bearing of arms under the body of the Constitution as the Militias exist for the defense of the United States as well of the States:

Art. I, Sec. 8:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, the Presser decision (language quoted above) seems to indicated that States (read cities as well) cannot ban the keeping and bearing of arms under the body of the Constitution as the Militias exist for the defense of the United States as well for the States

There is your proof that the 2nd applies to the states .

Article 1, sec. 8 seems to counter the argument that the 2nd only applies to state militias, as it says Congress (which is what Art. 1 is about) has to power to organize and arm the militia. The states only have the right to appoint militia officers and training militia.

If the 2nd is about militias then it directly contradicts Art. 1, Sec. 8, and thus would not be interpreted as simply dealing with milita.