3 ms·

Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only o

by pdonis 2y ago

Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only one. Indeed, once the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, one could argue that the United States were in fact organizing and using the militia to "repel invasion" by the British. But the militia was used before that happened, when the only grounds for its use was to resist tyrannical government by the British.

olliej 2y ago
The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.

by pdonis 2y ago

olliej 2y ago

The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.