• agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The article says guns should be ownable because they’re necessary in a militia. The language never implies that guns should only be owned by militia members. The militia line is a justification not a requirement.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You seemed to have missed the part where that’s the generous interpretation, the real interpretation is that since a militia is no longer necessary for the defense of our free state, civilian firearms ownership can just be banned entirely and that’s perfectly constitutional.

      Unless you want to argue that the strongest military in human history is insufficient defense of this free state.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Militias are still necessary for free states, especially since the Army is federal in nature, not a state organization. Now the militia helps ensure the security of the states from federal forces that would otherwise be left unchecked without so much as a means to stop a military dictatorship, which is the reason they didn’t form a standing army when they wrote the constitution. The only thing that changed was who the militia would be fighting against, and that’s a common interpretation. It very much aligns with the spirit of the law, preventing military dictatorship, for it to continue to exist.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          That why right now independent militias are one of the greatest threats of domestic terrorism in this country, like that time those militias defended the free state by forming the more organized portions of the J6 riots that explicitly set out to end our free state and replace it with a militia dictatorship?

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            So called ‘lone wolf’ shooters do more terrorism than militias they just don’t call it terrorism because they paint it as a personal issue despite them listening to the same media personalities, having the same theories, and going to the same online spaces. There are more mass shootings that qualify as terrorism, weather they’re called as such or not, than there is militia violence. Also idk what lessons you wanna pull from J6 considering to my knowledge none of the insurrectionists shot a firearm. You’re trying to tell me how dangerous militias are with guns yet it seems the most dangerous thing they did, they did without guns.