If you haven’t heard already (because the drama queen was very public about his decision, so people would ostensibly realize what a loss he was to the school) associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Kansas Jacob Dorman has tendered his resignation, because he got his mangina chafed at the state’s decision to allow concealed carry on campus. Because, you see, Dorman believes his cowardice, inability to control his bladder, and utter disdain for human rights should trump others’ right to defend himself. Additionally, Dorman believes other professors are just like him – pusillanimous dick brains, who apparently don’t understand this nation’s history, despite having taught it for a decade, as he reminds us in his resignation letter – will leave institutions of higher learning in droves.
In practical terms, concealed carry has proven to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as suspects themselves.
It’s typical of a panty-shitting coward to start his claims with misleading information. He claims concealed carry has been a failure, which is a disingenuous assertion since most colleges and universities ban concealed carry on campus, and overall crime on college campuses, including those that allow concealed carry, is minuscule. In 2015 Texas became just the eighth state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Arkansas and Georgia in 2017 passed legislation to allow students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. And given the misinformation vomited forth by Bloomberg-funded anti-rights groups about school shootings was debunked in 2014, Dorman’s claims are mendacious at best.
But maybe Dorman was claiming that concealed carry does not deter violence writ large. Could that be?
But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that this is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state.
Yep, that’s what Dorman is claiming, and that makes him look like a biased, uninformed douche tool, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. In fact, there have not been any problems with campus concealed carry in states that allow it. But hey, Dorman, don’t let that stop your froth-flecked histrionics! They’re effective kabuki theater for anyone ignorant enough about the issue and determined enough to fall for your hysterical rhetoric.
Fact is, Dorman thinks very highly of himself. He’s obviously quite the social justice warrior, as a student in his 300-level history class who rated Dorman only average, and noted, “I liked the course but I wish we had covered more and that it wasn’t focused only on race,” and he thinks that jamming the university full of progtards like himself is a desirable goal.
Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.
Boy, for someone who is supposed to be teaching history, Dorman is certainly illiterate and ignorant of what the Second Amendment actually says. I’ve referred to Roy Copperud – an acknowledged language expert – who definitively analyzed the text of the Second Amendment, and who shredded Dorman’s spurious claims, in multiple blog posts.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
But maybe Dorman should take a grammar class before bloviating on the meaning of text he quite obviously does not comprehend, because this obviously illiterate fuck monkey is teaching impressionable students American history, when he has obvious issues even comprehending the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and that’s just no bueno. Probably a good thing he’s bidding the university a fond farewell.
And I won’t even address the incredibly tone-deaf, arrogant, supercilious claim that the “best trained professors” only come from progtard ranks where everyone is as ignorant as he is on the meaning of 27 little words, written in plain English!
Moving on, Dorman engages in some interesting projection when it comes to students carrying firearms. As a matter of fact, he essentially denigrates and demeans anyone in his class who may choose to carry a tool of self defense as someone apt to use their firearm in anger, someone untrained, and someone not in control of their temper. Further, he degrades adults who choose to exercise their rights as people intolerant of others views, when numerous events over the past few years have shown exactly the opposite to be true. Remember Yale? Remember Mizzou? Remember TrigglyPuff? Remember Berkeley?
Moreover, we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that an argument could easily be lethal. Guns in the classroom will have a chilling effect on free speech and hinder the university’s mission to facilitate dialogue across lines of division. That stifling of dialogue will hurt all students, including the ones with guns in their pockets.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you self-important, clue-deficient, bloviating, shit gurgler? The threat of being fired, expelled or otherwise sanctioned for expressing an opinion with which the leftist Snowflake brigade disagrees.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you narcissistic assbag? The open and public effort to hire only “progressives,” to teach at universities while working to shut out any professor whose views you find disagreeable.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you smug, insulated twat blister? Drowning out dissenting speech and threatening violence to silence speakers with whose views you may not agree!
Trained, responsible adults, who are known to have very low incidents of criminal activity carrying tools of self defense in your classrooms should be the least of your worries! But since you’re a quivering, flapping mangina, you’re solely focused on the presence of an “evil” tool which may or may not be present in your classroom (you’ll never know, asshat – much like you’ll never know if someone is illegally carrying a concealed firearm), rather than the environment in today’s colleges, which you help perpetuate, and which insulates students from dissenting views and allows you to publicly urinate on those with whom you disagree with impunity.
Kansas faces a very clear choice: does it want excellent universities with world class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?
Yes, Kansas does face a very clear choice. Does it want professors on campus who, like Dorman, are intent on casting aspersions on the very students whose views claims to want to protect, but who obviously only cares about those views with which he happens to agree? Does it want professors who can’t even comprehend plain English (or alternately, intentionally misinterpret it to fit their views)?
Please, Dorman, take your options to teach elsewhere! Go away, and take your gaggle of insipid, cunt-chafed snowflakes with you!
You are the problem. You and your howling, perpetually outraged, spineless ilk are what stifles free speech on today’s campuses.
The University of Kansas should consider itself lucky to be rid of you.
It’s short, it’s sweet, and it’s the only reply that can be given to the CATO Institute’s latest policy report inviting Americans to consider grounds for compromise on gun control. Written by CATO Chairman Robert Levy, who despite listing all the facts that support gun rights’ advocates contentions that gun control cannot and will not reduce crime, still claims there’s room for compromise on the issue.
As if we haven’t been compromising and getting our rights shredded for decades!
Second Amendment rights are not absolute, he says. What does “shall not be infringed mean?”
“Everyone understands that children can’t carry automatic weapons to school,” he claims. But “can’t” and “shouldn’t” are different things. And if a child carries an automatic weapon to school, but harms no one with it, threatens no one with it, and merely bears this particular arm, as specified in the Bill of Rights, whose right is being violated, other than the child’s? This reductio ad absurdum is stupid and unworthy of a libertarian scholar.
“Assault rifles” are common and regularly used for hunting and shooting sports. Attempts to buy them back would backfire, like they did in the past. But yet, Levy identifies these rifles as a major area for possible compromise.
Now about NO! We tried that whole ban thing once. You know what happened during it? Fucking Columbine! Law abiding citizens dutifully stopped purchasing these weapons. Homicides with firearms were already on the decline prior to the implementation of the 1994 ban, and they continued to decline during and after the ban.
No! There’s no compromise that is acceptable to relieve people of their rights for absolutely no benefit.
Some weapons can be banned, he says. After all, machine guns have been banned for all intents and purposes since 1934, right? No, you undefuckable traitor to the Constitution. People still own them. They just have to jump through a shitload of legal hoops to legally do so. And they’re barely ever used in crimes. Again, what part of “shall not be infringed” is not clear?
And yes, the courts did say some regulation is legal. But if, according to Levy, “the government bears a heavy burden to justify its regulation. Government must show (a) public safety requires the proposed restrictions, (b) they will work, and (c) they are no more extensive than necessary,” show me where the hell these three requirements are being met!
Maybe we should compromise on high-capacity magazines, Levy says.
How about NO!
According to Gun Facts, The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. The average magazine swap time for a non-expert shooter is 2-3 seconds. In the case of the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre, the murderer performed 10 magazine changes before the police arrived. A 10 round restriction would have saved nobody.
So why compromise away the right, if it will help no one, save no lives? Once again, none of the requirements to meet the government’s burden to justify its regulation.
And then there are the universal background checks, which Levy admits felons easily avoid by either purchasing firearms illegally or stealing them, but still thinks gun owners will compromise on.
…even staunch Second Amendment proponents might be receptive to background checks for private (non-dealer) sales at gun shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. The key is quid pro quo — concessions to gun rights advocates in return for closing the “gun show loophole.” That was essentially the deal offered by the 2013 Manchin-Toomey bill, which garnered 54 Senate votes, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold.
How about FUCK NO, shit git?
There is no “gun show loophole,” since less than 1 percent of guns used in crimes are sold there.
There is no such thing as a legal Internet purchase without going through a federal firearms license holder, who is obligated to run a background check before handing you that gun you just purchased on the webz.
What they’re really talking about is outlawing private purchases. Period. (Which, by the way, will disproportionately affect the poor, who will have to pay more than they normally would for a firearm purchased from another individual, because they would have to absorb the cost of an FFL performing a background check.)
Since when does CATO have so little respect for private property?
I suspect my buddy Miguel is correct when he says that the libertarian intelligentsia is so desperate for relevance, they’re willing to take a large, steaming dump on the rights they once held dear. I guess they’re tired of being known as “extremists,” and they would rather compromise on their basic principles than be waved away as some radical zealots who are unwilling to negotiate away their fundamental rights.
Rights? Meh. They’re anachronistic, antediluvian tripe.
Looks like CATO would rather be taken “seriously” by those who despise individual rights and freedoms and would sacrifice them at the altar of “common good” in hopes that the alligator will eat them last than stand up to protect what is right.
What a damn shame.
The op-ed is entitled, “I know Assault Weapons and You Shouldn’t Have One.”
My first reaction is, “Eat a dick. If you claim that, you don’t know what an assault weapon is.”
He claims to be a veteran who experienced “first-hand combat” in Vietnam.”
My first reaction is, “Then, perhaps you should know what an assault weapon actually is, but you don’t.”
I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.
Much like the “violence planner,” who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this cock-gobbler knows exactly dick about the Constitution, but much like the “violence manager,” he uses his alleged combat experience to gain credibility on a subject he obviously knows little to nothing about, despite his spurious claim.
“I was drafted to fight in Vietnam” doesn’t make him an expert. It makes him someone who had to be forced into military duty. Dick.
Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.
Hey, walking twat! This is Shyanne Roberts. She the daughter of my friend Dan Roberts and a competitive shooter. Last year, this adorable child helped build the custom AR she is shooting in this photo. She was 10 years old at the time. She also knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and the fully automatic one you used in Vietnam.
Perhaps it’s time for you and Gersh KUNTZman to compare manginas.
Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.
So the very people of whom the military consists, and whose rights they are sworn to defend don’t count in your book, because you got forced into military service and now consider yourself an “expert?”
This veteran says “Eat a dick.”
I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?
What you do and don’t believe is irrelevant. The Second Amendment exists, regardless of whether you believe it does, and it speaks plain English, regardless of whether or not your stupid ass can understand it.
I also understand the Second Amendment’s purpose when it was written and the state of weaponry when it was created. It’s called perspective – useful when you’re forming opinions and making decisions.
Oh, another one who apparently doesn’t believe that the Internet, computers, and even typewriters are covered by the First Amendment. When you write this ignorant screed with a quill on parchment, given the state of writing technology when the First Amendment was written, I might listen to you (but probably not, because you’re stupid). Until then, eat a dick.
I call out our N.C. senators in Washington who consistently vote against stricter background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban, and not preventing people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. I’m amazed that politicians like Thom Tillis accept immense amounts of NRA donations and think we don’t understand that compromises the way he votes. I may not have gotten a college degree because I was fighting a war, but I’m smart enough to figure that out.
So, he has no respect for pretty much any amendment in the Bill of Rights, except, of course, the one that protects his right to be stupid. Due process? Who needs it! Right to keep and bear arms? Fuck it. Right of the people? Don’t care and don’t understand it.
Difference between full auto and semi-automatic rifle? Doesn’t know it, or doesn’t care.
What would you expect for someone who was forced into service and then uses said experience to try and relieve others of their rights?
In other words, John Butler, eat a dick.
You always know what to expect when someone claiming to be an authority on one topic decides to delve into another topic that has zero to do with his alleged expertise, and then begins his screed with an insult to a large portion of the American population. This is what popped up on my news feed this morning when I pulled up my Facebook account – shared by a friend from high school, who made it a habit of late to share idiotic anti-gun opinions and warn those reading her timeline that dissent will not be tolerated and opposing opinions deleted.
Well, that’s OK. I muted her, so I wouldn’t have to watch the abuse and ignorance unfold.
But the spew popped up again on the page of one of my favorite writers, and I thought maybe it was time to deal with the historical ignorance therein.
The following diatribe was published by a financial writer named Brett Arends, who apparently won some award for his writing about markets, economics and personal finance. But lately, he’s been delving into such topics as homophobia, the NRA, the Brexit (Britain’s potential exit from the EU), and Donald Trump.
Well, you see where this is going. The tirade, titled “What America’s Gun Fanatics Won’t Tell You,” Arends pretends to know something about history and the English language, by pulling up a single essay by Publius (aka Alexander Hamilton) in Federalist 29 to support his spurious claim that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, and insulting America’s gun owners, historians, and numerous constitutional scholars.
Let’s delve into it, shall we?
The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a gun
Believe it or not, I agree with Arends here. The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to keep and bear arms. It protects an already existing right. Analysis of the plain English of the Second Amendment by the late language expert Roy Copperud confirms this analysis.
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
Now, I know Arends probably considers himself an expert because he won some kind of award for his financial writing, but I do think Copperud’s more than three decades of journalism experience, his 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, his professional essays in Editor and Publisher, and his membership on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary trump Arends’ biography about Mitt Romney, his book on personal finance, and a book on sports gambling. So, yes, Arends is unintentionally correct here. The Second Amendment grants nothing.
Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.
Who’s pretending, Cupcake? Given the plain language contained in said amendment, I would submit the delusional extremist is the one claiming the 27 words don’t say what they plainly say.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.
Actually, no. As the late Roy Copperud said, the right to keep and bear arms shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.” It doesn’t say the right exists to ensure the militia, but that it is not to be infringed because a well armed and trained militia is necessary.
Shall we see if Arends actually understands the meaning of the phrase “well-regulated”? Believe it or not, he does, but then he dives head first into a bucket of stupid.
What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
Hamilton is a single Founding Father. Who is this “they” that told us some nonsense that Arends spews? Yes, Hamilton specifically says that a well-regulated militia means one that is properly trained in military maneuvers. Didn’t Arends think that those who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms read?
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives four definitions of “regulate.”
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.
Given Hamilton’s specific words above, it’s clear what definition is most applicable here.
And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.
Except at Gun Cite, where legal scholar David Hardy quotes Publius’ words, and in this essay by Tea Party, whom frothing nuts like Arends hate with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and quoted here at the Rense Report, and cited here by conservative/libertarian economist and columnist Walter Williams. But maybe Arends didn’t mean these extremists? Maybe there are some other extremists running around who are afraid of Federalist 29? Nope. Maybe it’s because those of us who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms have actually read it and other Federalist Papers, as well as citations from other Founding Fathers supporting the Second Amendment’s definitive language that protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.
A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.
Oh! So without a shred of evidence or even an interpretation of Hamilton’s words, Arends expects us to believe that Hamilton meant only the National Guard ought to be armed, even though the first unit didn’t call itself the “National Guard” in Lafayette’s honor until 1824, and the actual National Guard didn’t come into existence until the 20th century! Sure. Got it.
But it gets better.
It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.
Almost… almost… well-regulated… good… and BAM! Arends veers into dumbass land! If you notice, not once in his essay does Hamilton ever mention the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, or the right to keep and bear arms. Why? Because that’s not what he was addressing in the essay. The Bill of Rights didn’t exist yet. The debate was whether or not to adopt the Constitution. He was addressing whether the federal government should have authority over the militia.
Hamilton does not argue in this essay that the militia isn’t the whole of the people. He does not argue that they should not be armed. He does not argue that the people are not the last line of defense against tyranny. As a matter of fact, in Federalist 28, he specifically says they are. “In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
And Arends knows this. He understands this. He said as much in his next several paragraphs.
But all this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, nor has it anything to do with the Bill of Rights, which wasn’t even ratified until 1791. Hamilton’s letter was an attempt to calm the unease about the provisions of federal control of the militia. The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment were written afterward to further allay concerns about government overreach – a Bill of Rights that Hamilton, by the way, opposed, but which was ratified despite his opposition a few years later anyway.
Again, all this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Hamilton tried to ease concerns about the federal government’s authority over the militia, but also acknowledged that the majority of militiamen would muster about once a year, because requirements greater than that would put an undue burden on the employment and the economy of the country. Oh, and by the way, those Bubbas that were to be the barely trained militia would be supplied with arms and equipment by the federal government.
Where the hell is my M-4, feds?
The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.
Um. What? How did we go from “Hey, don’t worry about federal government authority over the militias” to “The Second Amendment (which didn’t exist yet) is an instrument of the government?” Did we find this in Federalist 29? Nope. Obviously, it’s pulled out of Arends’ fourth point of contact – that’s ASS for those who aren’t familiar with military terminology. Yeah, the Constitution is about government – defining what powers the government specifically holds. The Bill of Rights are amendments to said Constitution, and it lists definitive limits on said government.
Today we have a professional army, anyway. Military matters have become so complex that no part-time soldiers could do it all.
Except the Reserves and the National Guard, who drill one weekend per month and two weeks for year for Annual Training, or AT. Those National Guard and Reserve Soldiers, most of whom deploy and fight in foreign and dangerous lands that would make Arends shit himself in fear. I can’t wait to tell my son he’s not a professional Soldier, according to a financial columnist!
So you could argue that makes the Second Amendment null and void, like the parts in the Constitution about slaves and Indians being counted as “three-fifths” of a person in the Census.
Except that those parts of the Constitution were rendered obsolete by the 13th amendment, not by ignorant, frothing fiat of an uninformed, irrational financial columnist with a transparent agenda, whose claim to fame is a biography of a failed presidential candidate and former governor.
But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline.
What part of the Second Amendment says that, pray tell? Is this the one that refers to the right of the people, and not the right of the militia to bear arms?
So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter.
Hey, douche bat! The National Guard doesn’t issue AK-47s. And in case you have forgotten, there’s something called the “unorganized militia” in this country, per US code.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In other words, Arends took one Federalist Paper letter by one of the Founders that has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, and was written prior to the creation and ratification of said set of amendments, and decided that somehow it proves there is no individual right to keep and bear arms as plainly stated in the amendment that didn’t exist at the time said Founder was writing the essay.
Perhaps some reading – particularly of Federalist 46 by James Madison – will help young Arends’ confusion vis-a-vis the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe then he will be more intellectually honest, or at least more informed.