Help Wanted: Second Amendment Advice
Kyle Rittenhouse’s Militia’s Unregulated Intent
Our American government didn’t form itself to overthrow itself. But it did put in safeguards to protect itself from any despot who sought to end democracy, and that action could be done with force. The founders spent a while just overthrowing a dictator, so they knew about needing the use of force. That’s my impression in reading over the Declaration of Independence and Constitution recently, which I really need further review of. But here’s what I need advice on something I don’t get:
Doesn’t the second amendment allow for the government to be the force to regulate any militia?
What struck me was not any restraint on individual gun control I saw. But the phrase, “a well regulated militia.” I did a quick grammatical review. The passive structure of the adjective indicates action was taken on something. In this case, regulation was taken on the noun militia. Thus, there was someone doing the regulation on the militia. This regulating can only be done by the government, the democratic government that has the constitutional authority to regulate.
So really, the sentence is broken down into parts. First, the government has a right to regulate. Second that militias cannot be free from that regulating. I take a militia is a private army or club with guns, training for military purposes to fight. It is a group of organized fighters with guns. When that group forms, the second amendment gives the government the power to regulate a group of people.
I’m not talking about individual gun control here. The reason I bring this up is that I heard someone say about the Kyle Rittenhouse case in Wisconsin, that he was a member of a militia. Videos show militia men chatting at a gas station. Doesn’t that give the government the right to regulate that militia? I’m not saying that the federal government should take away their guns. But that government has a right to check into the activity of a group of people with guns who are forming to fight, patrol, or pass judgement on fellow unarmed citizens.
I understand how a person can have a gun to protect himself or herself or household or to hunt. But the government should a right to protect itself, shouldn’t it? Our secular American constitutional democracy has a right, empowered by the people, to maintain itself and protect itself from being overrun or overthrown. So, when should the government, any federal agent or federal official, have a right to inspect a group they see or hear about training with weapons?
Why try and secretly infiltrate a neo-Nazi group, for example? That’s not regulation, that spying. Go through the front door for Pete’s sake, you’re the federal government. Grow up and get a pair (both men and women typically have a pair of something). Roll in there with FBI agents trained in going in nicely to inspect: to make the group get registered, to register the members, to register the weapons, to get a statement to their purpose and activity on the record. The record can hold them libel and accountable.
If someone open sa gun range in Vermont let’s say — so we don’t talk about Wisconsin or the South or Texas, but peaceful, lovely Vermont — and they open a gun range, and all these people come there to train, don’t you think the government has a right to know what’s going on? Just stop being sissy’s, go in and knock on the door. Does anyone want a weak government htat refuses to protect its citizen neighbors when gun firing is going on? How do you know it’s a gun club or just a shooting range? Go on and take a look. Register them. You have the right to “regulate”, it’s right there. That my kneejerk reaction.
Obviously, we need to see this Vermont Cheese Lover Hunting Club. We need a federal database where we can look them up. We have one for beef inspectors and chicken inspectors with the FDA. We have workplace inspectors with OSHA. We have restaurant safety inspectors. You can look up restaurant inspections in your county. Should we have a democracy inspector and a database for that?
Then everyone in the Illinois Freedom Gun Militia can register its members and weapons. That way when its guns end up in the hands of a young kid in another state, we won’t have to waste money on a murder trial. We will know he is guilty by interviewing each member, tracing the gun to the club, and holding the club, or the Kyle Kenosha Militia, responsible.
At that point the federal government, with its constitutional right to a well regulated militia, can disband that militia for violating federal militia rules. They government can take away their guns, because like with getting a DUI, they are acting irresponsibly while behind a deadly weapon. Maybe his whole militia will be disbanded for moving with force and violent armed intent across state lines like an invasion force. Operation Delta Kyle Kill.
Why would that be obvious? Did the government arrest the militia members that crossed state lines with Kyle? He wasn’t alone right? He came up with a pack? We could call the new “well regulated militia” database the Protect Freedom Database. Like any sex offender database, you will know whether the militia in your neck of the woods is a “well regulated militia” or a just a bunch of peeping Toms.
Who would you rather see on your street at night when you look out the window: A dirty pervert peeping in neighbor’s window moving from house to house, or eight guys in camouflage moving down the center with AR 15 military style assault rifles? Who would you rather see surrounding your state capital building: a lone chronic public masturbator or 12 dressed and armed unregulated militia minded soldiers? It might be too late to call the cops at that point and they would probably out arm the police stationed there. If you are too late to stop the sex offender, at least the puddle next to him won’t be blood and his ‘weapon’ will be put away.
So, what do you think about this term “well regulated militia”? Should the government that protects us against Muslim foreign-born terrorists protect us against, well, white American terrorists? Should we know have a right to know a peace-loving American militia from an unregulated one intent on harming others, which is organizing itself for an unknown action, like patrolling black citizens when they are peacefully protesting?
Is Kyle’s Kenosha Patrolling Militia like Al Qaida in 1993 or 2001 just before their attacks and training in the U.S.? or the Christian white Branch Davidians? Or the white Klan for that matter?
Do you think Kyle’s militia was guilty of organizing and committing terrorism when it crossed state lines as a group, dressed in military intent but not registered with the government?