DarkFury
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #1
When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.
Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.
Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.
Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.
Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.
And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.
Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.
Thoughts?
Fury
Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.
Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.
Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.
Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.
And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.
Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.
Thoughts?
Fury