Pop23
Gold Member
The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so donāt pretend that it is insignificant. Youāve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. Thatās fine, now move one. I donāt get why you keep bringing it upThe second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over itYou mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?For over 20 pages Iāve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like Iāve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so Iāll thank you for that.I did say that
You just didn't understand it
And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.
So moving forward, Iām curious. Youāve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, Iām assuming that means you support back ground checks as thatās the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?
The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".
You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.
Please, tell me why they would have done that?