SCOTUS doesn't understand the phrase "ultra vires".

I'm not going to repeat what the role of the US Supreme Court is, but it is not to create laws.

It's is to interpret them according to legal method.

Not to follow flights of fancy and create meanings which aren't there. 

Especially since it's power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution! The power of judicial review was formally established in the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 

In contrast, the US Constitution makes it clear it deals with matters of common defence. This is set out in the preamble. In other legal systems, the preamble, or whatever you wish to call that statement of intent, is considered important because it sets out the intent.

So if something starts with "A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE", that might give you a clue that the text relates to the militia. This is very true if it is silent on other purposes.

I'm not going to get into how many times common defence terms, such as, but not limited to Army, navy, militia, etcetera are mentioned in the Constitution. But I will tell you how many times personal uses of firearms, such as self-defence, are mentioned.

Not once. Zero, never.

And since the concept of the militia as conceived by the founders is pretty much non-existent, the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete. It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.  

So, Scalia, the buffoon that he was, stated incorrectly:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

It most certainly is the role of the court to declare it extinct. Unfortunately, Scalia wears his ignorance with pride with his statement about the standing army.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. --Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789, Annals 1:749--52, 766--67  

And can't forget this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

One of the evils the Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from was the establishment of a standing army, which Scalia should have known. It's a big topic in Anglo-American legal history. 

So, it IS NOT the role of the court to improperly modify the US Constitution to its personal prejudices which have no basis in reality. It was bound by the text of the US Constitution as well as the precedent of US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which referred to Aymette v State (21 Tenn. 152 [1840]):

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

Miller's true holding was:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.    

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --   

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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."   

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This precedent should not have been overturned based upon nonsensical reasoning from outside the text of the US Constitution.

The ultimate point of this is that the US Supreme Court acted outside of its powers and as such, the cases coming from DC v Heller are not valid since the US Constitution is silent on what they created.

The only correct way to create "gun rights" would be to amend the US Constitution: not by judicial fiat.

The Constitution Isn’t a Living Document — It Was Built to Resist You

They didn't want you to have arms to resist, or defend yourself. They wanted you to bear arms in a militia to preserve the system (Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and article III, Sec. iii). 

You are the yahoos who would come later.

Supreme Court Can’t Hear Case Because Majority Had To Be Recused

People are upset about the mention of "court packing", but the founders didn't put judicial review into the Constitution. Toss in that the Supreme Court didn't have ethics rules until 2023!

And when they did adopt ethics rules (from NPR):

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday adopted its first-ever ethics code, bowing to pressure from Congress and the public. All nine justices signed onto the new code, which was instantly criticized for lack of an enforcement mechanism.

In an unsigned statement, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by certain standards.

"The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules," they wrote. "To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

Public trust in the court has fallen amid revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts and travel from Harlan Crow, a Republican donor. Justice Samuel Alito has also been criticized for failing to disclose a fishing trip with Paul Singer, a big Republican donor with cases before the Supreme Court.

This gets better

With the release of the code Monday, the court is trying to be somewhat specific about what justices can and cannot do. But, there is a lot they can do and no enforcement mechanism as to what they are supposed not to do.

For example, the code is quite specific about financial transactions: Justices can make a real estate transaction, as long as it's not before the court. But the code simply reaffirms the commitment to the disclosure provisions that are in the existing code for all federal judges.

The code is also specific about recusal if family members, such as spouses, children or grandchildren, have a case before the court or is a lawyer before the court.

But the code also makes exceptions for justices that may not apply to lower court judges. For instance, a justice doesn't have to recuse if his or her relative files a friend of the court brief because the court receives so many of these briefs, sometimes over 100 in a single case, and it has loosened the rules on these briefs being filed.

In recent months, critics have raised concerns about Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, and her activities to promote political causes that end up before the court. The code says that if a spouse or child living with the justice has a substantial interest in the outcome of a case — financial or any other interest — the justice is supposed to recuse. That would have meant, for example, that Justice Thomas would have to recuse in cases in which his wife has played a major role. Last year, Thomas did not recuse, and was the sole dissenter, in a case about whether former President Trump's White House records had to be turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, despite Ginni Thomas' texts to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to take steps to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

 I'm sorry, but I have not had respect for the US Supreme Court for a long time. Serious ethics rules would be a start.

Trump has found Gödel's Loophole in the US Constitution which allows the US to become a dictatorship.

Kurt Gödel was an Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher. He was born in Austria and emmigrated to the United States

When Gödel was studying to take his American citizenship test in 1947, he came across what he called an "inner contradiction" in the U.S. Constitution. At the time, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was good friends with Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern. Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the U.S. to legally become a fascist state. Morgenstern tried to convince Gödel that this was very unlikely, but Gödel remained very concerned about it. He was an Austrian by birth and, having lived through the 1933 coup d'état and escaped from Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, had reason to be concerned about living in a fascist dictatorship. Morgenstern had secret discussions with Gödel about his concerns and told Einstein about them.

Since the exact nature of Gödel's Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known. In his 2012 paper "Gödel's Loophole" F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still.  Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other aspects of the Constitution in mind as well, including the abuse of gerrymandering, prorogation of Congress, the Electoral College, and the presidential pardon.

In any case, the Gödel story is at least plausible. He spent a great deal of time thinking about systems of rules (axiom systems in mathematics), and looking for their limits and what such systems can say about themselves.

It should come as no surprise that when encouraged to look at the US constitution (which is, after all, just a set of rules), Gödel was enthusiastic and his thoughts turned immediately to what the system said about itself – and its limitations. It should also come as no surprise then that when he looked, he found some.

So, maybe the loophole isn't what is written in the US Constitution, but is something which has come about through tradition?  Although, I have come to realise the US Constitution is basically poorly written bumpf. A piece of shit written by a committee. Which is why he couldn't put his finger on one thing. Since as the speculation has pointed out, there are more than enough problems with it.

But Donald Trump pushed the envelope with his attack on birthright citizenship. Which is something I agree about and there is a simple solution which requires an amendment to the Constitution that at least one parent needs to have some legal connection to the United States (Ireland uses this). But instead of following tradition and protocol, Trump has chosen to use the nuclear option.

He's challenging the Supreme Court and its power.

So much for checks and balances.

So, I am going to quote myself on the biggest problem, which is one which custom has allowed to stand.

In fact, those decisions (Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment) should be laughed at. And any academic or practising lawyer who is shit for brains enough to give them the slightest credence should be barred from the practise of law since they ignore a fundamental basis of US Constitutional law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

It's one of the first cases any constitutional law class covers, which is why anyone who gives Heller and McDonald a shred of legitimacy should be barred from the practise of law. Why? First off.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial review for constitutionality is not a power granted by the US Constitution: it comes from this case.

More importantly it centred around a clause in the US Constitution (hint, hint, for those shit for brains who want to call themselves "Constitutional Scholars").

My question when Heller came down was how does the system handle an out of control Judiciary? The obvious answer is that it defers to tradition. On the other hand, Trump is pointing out that the emperor is naked. Does the Supreme Court, or the Judiciary, have any real power to enforce its decisions? 

So, maybe the reason Gödel didn't tell anyone what this loophole happened to be was because it is that the entire constitution is a house of cards. Gödel could see this since English wasn't his first language and he was a logician. The loophole isn't something which is written into the constitution, it is something which was attributed to the constitution.

And as I have pointed out, proper legal method requires that something needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for it to be constitutional. Gödel's loophole is the deference given to concepts which are not explicitly written into the Constitution. Assumptions made by the founders which can be exploited by those with malicious intent. And the fact that language changes meaning.

The Second Amendment was the perfect example of this.

So, two people whose mother tongue is not English can agree on this. It's not what is written, it is what ISN'T written. Or is subject to misinterpretation.

Scalia was very wrong when he said: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

That is precisely what he needed to do before he set in motion the destruction of the United States.

And the "scholars", politicians, and lawyers who allowed this should resign their positions for someone who is competent.

'We the People' - the three most misunderstood words in US history | Mar...

Like it or not, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are anything BUT popular documents. It was written in secret by a select group of people. Sure, there were debates, but they were anything open and above board until after the document was written. People forget that some people, the anti-Federalists, were against ratification of the constitution.

I don't totally agree with his analysis (the pronouns bit is anachronistic as heck), but he does make some very good points.

It wasn't written for the benefit of my ancestors who fought for independence and revolted at Morristown. It was written for the elite who said "We the people".

You say you want a revolution????

I often note that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one, under the US Constitutional Framework. Per the US Constitution itself:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, mentions of inalienable rights, all men being created equal, and so forth really don't carry much legal weight.

That's because the Declaration of Independence was written as a justification for why the US should be independent from Britain. And in light of current events, it's full of bullshit.

Take, for example, these two complaints:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

One of the main complaints of the people drafting this document was that the unelected, government in Britain was abrogating laws made by the colonial legislatures.

Or more concisely, unelected officials were taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

In short, the unelected officials wearing robes were destroying popularly enacted laws.

The gets to the topic of judicial deference, which also means that judges are umpires, not legislators.

There are reasons of public safety and good public policy WHY some laws should be on the books.

Also, there is the rule of law, which seems to have disappeared under the "conservative" atmosphere in the US.

On the other hand, the US was founded on the concept that unelected officials shouldn't be messing with laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

On the other hand, the tories pointed out that they would rather be ruled by one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants a mile away.

Oh, and since I mention the Second Amendment, these were complaints made by the colonists:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Nothing about private arms.

What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed?"

 What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????

Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?

The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."  3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).

Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.

Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:

That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)

The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.

OK, Feminists, now's your time!!!

 The word of the day is once again desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.

And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission.  Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:

“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”

The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.

 But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).

On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.

And it's not even an amendment!

Let havoc reign in the halls of "justice"!

Defund the Police, Get a Kyle Rittenhouse

 Art. 12. La garantie des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.

XII. A public force being necessary to give security to the rights of men and of citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is intrusted.

Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

What Kyle Rittenhouse did was wrong. That is travelling to another jurisdiction to "preserve the peace". He was lucky that he wasn't shot by the actual militia, or National Guard (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), for being on the street with a weapon.[1] On the other hand, I understand why he did what he did.

The Document that I quote above is contemporary to the US Constitution and is equally influential on the Constitutions of other nations beside France and former French Colonies.  There are parallels between the two documents, but the most important piece of the Constitution tends to be neglected. That is the preamble. In other laws, there is a statement of purpose, or why the document was adopted. The US Constitution states it was adopted for the purposes of:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution DID NOT repeal previous sections of the Constitution, which describes the roles of  the militia as:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And while the uneducated like to claim membership in the militia as members of an "unorganised militia", that is the equivalent to saying that being subject to the draft makes one a member of the US Military. In other words, the "unorganised" miltia is a body which can be called into service under the call up provisions of state laws. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

His heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. 

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
  

Imagine this actually happening at the US Constitutional Convention.

The Good News: Catherine the Great has promised to give us a Donkey Show if we create an Electoral College.
The Bad News: It won't be for another 230 years or so.

Next, Let's ensure that we will have gun mayhem and mass shootings in the future.

Oh, cake!