Question about the second amendment

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

its just not feasable that that need would ever arise today

Lets go back to your make believe scenario that somehow the entire us military is finished. Every base, and all the military structure has been bombed and finished.

There will still be millions of americans, and the point of any war is control of the region whether directly or through some form of vassal scenario where they install someone to rule.

The militias would then take up the fight to reinstall america. They arent made up on the fly, they already exist in every state. Im not a part of a militia but i could then join and be given directives.

The same way an afghani villager isnt taliban. He joins and is given objectives.

The point of the taliban or al qaeda isnt to build ships and planes and come and destroy america, it is to kill the invading force, and do whatever is necessary to get the invading force to leave so you can re institute your way of life.

The militias would be no different. We wouldnt be trying to defeat russia or china or whoever, just make there governance impossible here so we could reclaim our sovereignty.

If you think that is stupid and unfeasible thats fine, but like i said, i would rather die fighting. The second amendment makes perfect sense.

[veritas]

Jude: the ability to form a militia is bc we have the right to bare arms. We don't have the right to bare arms just to form a militia. The second amendment really gives us the right for both. As one is a logical consequence of the other.

And why would we not need a militia now a days?