LTTE: "Own a gun? Be ready to serve in the militia"

[alp227]

Haha, this LTTE NAILS IT!!

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Today, we have a "well regulated" militia called the U.S. Army, and each state has a well regulated national guard. These young men and women are trained to carry and use not only semi-automatic weapons, but fully automatic. In 1791, there was not a regular army. The army was "the people". We have a well-regulated Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force as well, and they can carry and use these weapons when called upon. If a member of the public wishes to own one of these weapons and use them, doesn't the U.S. government need to know this so that gun owner may be called upon to defend this country in time of need? Isn't this the real meaning of the Second Amendment? If one really wants to use these weapons, they could be rented from a shooting range, then left there under lock and key. NRA members feels gun restrictive laws will affect guns regulated for hunting and needlessly misdirect the need to eliminate assault weapons.

[BlueJazz]

1. Sounds good to me. Make the people put their guns to good use and protect us.

They want to play "Army" ?? Great!

[RC]

2. Sounds much better than the current gun nutz 'wisdom' of everbody an' their kid brother

needs an arsenal to protect themselves, because everbody else has one too.

[klook]

3. +30 rounds

"And while you're at it, give me 30 push-ups, you maggot!"

[slackmaster]

4. Yes. The militia is the body of people who are subject to conscription. It's basically everyone.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[Marinedem]

5. Sweet.

I'll keep on keeping on then.

I'll leave the banners to chortle and back-slap at their super clever and convincing arguments that will one day sway thousands.

Army indeed.

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. Except

It provides proof that the definition of the militia is defined by legislation - not by the Constitution.

[jmg257]

6. Well - no points for originality or facts, but the punctuation was nice. nt

[NMDemDist2]

7. yup. any yahoo with a gun, when assembled, are called 'irregulars' not well regulated. n/t

[frylock]

8. excellent observation

win.

[JohnnyRingo]

10. Unfortunately, I know people who are ready.

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

At least they think they're ready to rise up and "save us" from those who would abolish the constitution. Actually, it seems they're only concerned with one amendment, but nonetheless, they really do believe they'll be called upon by the unarmed masses to convene in our government function and "return or freedom". Some also believe they'll be the last line of defense in the event of a foreign invasion.

Unfortunately for them, they're mostly pushing Social Security age and would be a poor militia indeed. When they start babbling their nonsense about "taking back their country", I usually reply: "who's asking you to do that?". It seems they have a hard time understanding that the great majority of Americans aren't looking forward to their version of The United States. I often get accused of being a loony liberal, and some old friends don't talk to me anymore because I'm too much in favor of gun regulation.

Understand that I'm one of the millions of Democrats who own a couple guns, and I believe I have a right to do so, but I don't labor under an illusion that I need them to protect myself from the government or Red China. Too many do, and when someone asks the far right to form militias to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, don't be surprised if a lot of hands go up.

Be careful what you wish for.