The response to that is: “Okay, make firearm ownership, training, and annual qualification with said firearm mandatory.”
And their response would be, “Naaaaaaw. Let’s just agree that you aren’t in a militia, we can tell you what is what on guns and gun related stuff, pray the NRA is going to go away so ‘our demographic’ can finally confiscate your guns and leave things basically the way it is today. One of our agencies tells you what to do, and you do it.”
Then they’d look around at the ‘demographic’ and ask, “Any of you fellas in a milita? No?”
Then they’d turn to you and say, “See. Give me your guns.”
Really, if it were NOT for the NRA, we’d have had to give up our guns a long, long time ago. Stare decisis, thank God, except up until maybe a decade or two ago, supported the notion that the ‘well regulated militia’ is anyone who wants to own a gun for basically any lawful reason.
This is precisely why Obola has been using the agencies, or he’d be using the courts like he did in shoving Obolacare down our throats.
This is also why this bill is being proposed. It outs people for being anti-gun. You just can’t be anti-gun - even in WA state, and WA state is the bluest of all the blue states. It’s bluer than NY and CA put together.
There are a LOT of D’s that say they are pro-gun that aren’t - ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS.
Like I said, we can quibble about the number, but the way the 2nd is written today, you can assail it and live politically.
The idea here is to affirm the notion that gun rights are essentially endowed by the Creator - that is certainly more true than affirming that a women’s right to kill their own children is endowed by her Creator.
You want to pass a law on guns, affirm it with a vote.
If the US gets to the point where a legislator thinks they can survive politically by voting to take guns from people, then you and I both better have bugged out by then.