[Telepathic Intruder]

if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself

Actually, it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is a tired old argument by the Left, that only militias have the right to bear arms. What is a militia anyway? It's a civilian army. How can a militia have weapons if civilians cannot?

[Eye of Unk]

My definition of the 2A militia requirement is first off I don’t have to wait around for permission or orders, I can use hardware the best I can procure and thats more than I should say, and that as long as I adhere to common sense with the intentions laid out by the 2A I need not be overly concerned about illegal laws telling me to be a surrender monkey, because its all moot when by all definitions the orders are evolving from the problem, its like Hitler taking over Hollywood and the newsreels during WW2 flooding all the screens with threats and propaganda that his way has supremacy and all those that oppse will be eliminated or sent to the ovens.

[ought-six]

An armed citizenry exists independent of a militia (i.e., you can have armed citizens without having a militia). On the other hand, a militia CANNOT exist without an armed citizenry. Thus, an armed citizenry is paramount, a militia is a side effect.

[ought-six]

An armed citizenry exists independent of a militia (i.e., you can have armed citizens without having a militia). On the other hand, a militia CANNOT exist without an armed citizenry. Thus, an armed citizenry is paramount, a militia is a side effect.