Federal Judge: Assault Weapons Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

[stanc]

Not quite.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention debates, service in militia for the various states was able bodied men aged 16-60 (varied slightly between states), not the age listed in Militia Acts of 1792.

So, you're trying to shift the discussion to how the various state militias were defined prior to adoption of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federal militia standards. LOL.

But my point in referencing the 1903 Militia Act was to point out that the National Guard had not entirely replaced the militia as you asserted. The act allowed for non-NG "unorganized militia"...

Not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this. I never said the National Guard replaced the unorganized militia. I said it replaced the old State militias.

And what I said about the unorganized, or Reserve militia, is that it was not "everyone else" as you stated -- it was only able-bodied males 18-45 years old.

...thus, the militia is alive and well.

But not in the form originally conceived by the Founders in the Militia Act of 1792, wherein militia members are required by law to provide their own individual weapons.

An updated version of the 1792 law would mandate that militia members own an M4 carbine. That's significantly different than currently exists with the National Guard.

In keeping with the OP, I leave the following (again courtesy of Scalia in DC v Heller):

“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . ."

Talk about irony. Whenever I've noted that is the stated purpose of the Second Amendment, people here give me a ton of grief. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.