I will be happy to consider your argument if and when you provide a definition of militia. As you have not provided any such definition, your argument above is meaningless.

You really are convinced this is a thing....

I have ample justification for that conviction. You can disagree, of course, but you have provided no logical basis for that disagreement. Again, you will need to provide and support a contrary definition of "militia" as it is used in Article I and 2A in order to rationally make your claims.

Based on your suggestion to enlist if I wanted to secure the nation, I suspect that your definition of "militia" will be more consistent with how the founding fathers used the terms "armies" and "Navy" than how they used "militia".

I do think we can agree that the modern usage of "militia" to mean a "privately organized paramilitary group" is not at all what is meant by the second amendment. Those ass clowns are closer to "insurrectionists" than "militia".

[–] mojofrododojo 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you've offered a lot of text but zero citations that support your argument, but are surprised I'm dubious?

you live around a lot of gullible or stupid people apparently. not everyone is going to accept your assertions.

you've got a lot of word salad and little that justifies arming the populace.

militia or otherwise. it's all gun fetishism and I'm not into it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

you've offered a lot of text but zero citations that support your argument

Are you being intellectually lazy, or are you arguing in bad faith?

10 USC 246.

I have cited it multiple times now. While I prefer to use the broader, constitutional meaning, the legislated definition, codified as 10 USC 246 is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

[–] mojofrododojo 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

citations THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT BELLEND

10 USC 246.

(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.

you're asserting that any asshole with a gun is category 2. I assert that flies in the face with the 2a - a well organized militia is INHERENTLY NOT: the unorganized militia

Keep trying to justify the idiots. This is about as fun as cancer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I assert that flies in the face with the 2a - a well ~~organized~~ regulated militia is INHERENTLY NOT: the unorganized militia

My argument is not in conflict with your assertion. I don't need to rebut it. Quite the contrary, your assertion supports my position.

The only constitutionally valid conclusion we can draw from your assertion is that the unorganized class of the militia is not adequately regulated.

Since I am calling for additional regulation in the form of mandated training, I can accept your assertion. I can have you expand on your point, and ask what additional regulations you believe are necessary and appropriate to impose upon the whole of the people, the unorganized militia.

You cannot prohibit or prevent the unorganized militia from keeping or bearing arms. Congress does not have that power. But, you do have the power to regulate the unorganized militia. What additional regulations do you want to impose upon yourself and all of us?

I want mandated training on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force.