Original sentence: The first side argues that only "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear Arms.Those who maintain that Suprynowicz's argument still commits the fallacy of division, argue that the delegation of powers is not partial but complete, and that no state allows individuals to retain any right to execute or imprison when self-defense is not an immanent issue
Edited sentence: Citizens can also use deadly force to defend others, or their property, or the state (as cited above), not just in cases of imminent danger to themselves alone.Furthermore, in few courts in the nation is a judge allowed to impose the death penalty, only a jury of one's peers can do so in most cases, ergo the power to execute remains in the hands of the average citizen doing their jury duty.However they are forgetting that most states in the US empower the average citizen to effect citizens arrest for felonies and in some cases obligate them to do so.If only the militia can have arms for infantry purposes, and the 'militia' is "the whole of the people" (according to George Mason), then shouldn't all persons own assault rifles.Some, like New Hampshire even disallow local government regulation of shooting ranges.The first side argues that only "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear Arms, where George Mason and James Madison have both said the militia is the whole of the people.Those who maintain that Suprynowicz's argument still commits the fallacy of division, argue that the delegation of powers is not partial but complete, and that no state allows individuals to retain any right to execute or imprison when self-defense is not an imminent issue