Nosmo King
Gold Member
Your Wikipedia entry described the Timothy McVeigh brand of militias. If that serves as your cover for 'well regulated militias', I suggest that it does not make the best defense.Where's the damn militia? Where's the 'well regulated' part? All I see is men who still love to play Army like little boys or who have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be able to make a stand against either a crazed gunman in a theater or the United States Armed forces. What I do not see is anything that meets the threshold of 'well regulated' or 'militia'.Ahem.
Five key words you liberals seem to routinely miss:
"The right of the people"
Which is an all inclusive phrase, which means that in order to have a militia, every citizen must have a right to bear arms, not just the militia.
If you're going all in in defending the 2nd amendment, go all in on the totality of the amendment.
You're angry. And an easy debate opponent.
The rights of the people, key words "the people" to bear arms cannot be regulated. Unless these "men who still love to play Army like little boys" go on a mass shooting spree, their rights to bear arms are not to be infringed.
And your evidence:
The Militia Act of 1792 and Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code.
Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia