“What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
I think the definitive might be the feds own laws. The first law being first amendment rights. And a federal politician has even more rights on that since they made a law that gives them the right to make promises that most likely can’t be kept affording them the opportunity to literally lie. But the second law is even more interesting.
Let’s define militia:
10 USC Ch. 12
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In other words, anybody can even be a militia of one as long as they are able-bodied men 17 to 45 of age who are not part of the organized militia and apparently not women or have any restrictions attached to their membership of their unit like a federal conviction. (No guns so what good are they? All they can do is say stop, or I’ll say stop again)
Wy69
lots of substantive thoughtful responses to my question posted earlier in the thread. I asked specifically as that was the question a group of liberals posed to me.