• agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 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.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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.