Quote (Black XistenZ @ May 1 2020 08:34pm)
Armed militias have no business wielding their guns in front of elected lawmakers' faces, period. Why the hell were they even let in?
At the end of the day, political movements are always about achieving a concrete policy. Protesters want governments to change the rules/the course of the country, so them arming themselves automatically comes with an implicit threat: do our bidding, or else...
This is fundamentally different from people defending themselves against imminent violence.
And no, a government implementing policies and rules that you personally dont like or agree with is not an imminent threat under any but the most extreme circumstances - it's a basic part of living in a democracy.
In any case, these loons definitely dont match the requirement stated in the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated militia..."
Honestly surprised you posted this ultimate blue pilled bootlicker nonsense after being here so long.
Read the entire second amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
'Well regulated militia' isn't a requirement for the right to bear arms.
Thats a level 1 MSNBC bubble leftist soccer mom talking point, not a real thing.
Government should be under threat when it acts tyrannically.
They are right to protest and they are right to be armed. Its a defense against the government continuing to push them around.