You don’t know what a militia is and you think the British were fought by, I dunno, some guys.
You’ve read things and absorbed only what feels like it validates your worldview. You have no idea why anyone would do anything else. You do not care what words mean.
No. Obviously not. But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence, despite all this bickering. You treat the conversation as some pitched battle of tone instead of a mutual effort to find fact.
Defining a militia only matters if you’re going to muster them, which we don’t do anymore. We might as well talk about who’s eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence
We’ve already been through this. The first part does not limit the second part. It’s incredibly clear from the direct text, as well as contemporaneous writing of the founders who wrote it
We might as well talk about who’s eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
Motherfucker it is the first subject of the one sentence we are arguing about. A sentence which goes ‘X being needed for Y, let’s do Z.’ The first part is the only stated reason for the second part. And your stuck ass can’t figure out why it keeps coming up.
Oh, no, sorry, this is your goal-oriented reading comprehension: ‘we might as well talk about it’ in the sense that we don’t fucking do that anymore, which is kind of important when it is the only stated reason for the thing we’re fucking talking about.
You don’t know what a militia is and you think the British were fought by, I dunno, some guys.
You’ve read things and absorbed only what feels like it validates your worldview. You have no idea why anyone would do anything else. You do not care what words mean.
Useless patience vampire.
It’s literally every male. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
You’re projecting
So only men can own guns?
Only men aged 18-45?
No. Obviously not. But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence, despite all this bickering. You treat the conversation as some pitched battle of tone instead of a mutual effort to find fact.
Defining a militia only matters if you’re going to muster them, which we don’t do anymore. We might as well talk about who’s eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
We’ve already been through this. The first part does not limit the second part. It’s incredibly clear from the direct text, as well as contemporaneous writing of the founders who wrote it
You’re the only one bringing up militia.
Motherfucker it is the first subject of the one sentence we are arguing about. A sentence which goes ‘X being needed for Y, let’s do Z.’ The first part is the only stated reason for the second part. And your stuck ass can’t figure out why it keeps coming up.
Oh, no, sorry, this is your goal-oriented reading comprehension: ‘we might as well talk about it’ in the sense that we don’t fucking do that anymore, which is kind of important when it is the only stated reason for the thing we’re fucking talking about.