| > Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? According to 10 U.S. Code § 246[0]: (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. So, the majority of male Americans belong to the militia of the United States, and the vast majority of those belong to the unorganised militia (arguably, this section of the U.S. Code should be extended to cover women as well). Bearing private arms is simply arming oneself as a member of the unorganised militia. > How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better? A suppressor is simply a safety device to save hearing; it's not a magical silencer. > How does your right contribute to the security of the state? An armed populace is better able to suppress insurrection, e.g. during the LA Riots back in the 90s. > Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion? It shouldn't be. We reasonably prohibit firearms to felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill &c. Honestly, if the Second Amendment were treated like the First is, the New York Times would publish op-eds urging that concealed-carry be mandatory … 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 |