Rep. Eric Swalwell seems to have an answer for gun control

[TurtleDude]

Self defense from the military, for the protection of the State. Sorry, but you can't change the text.

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.

That is the precondition to the second part of the statement. Without that precondition, the second part doesn't matter. That is basic logic of the English language. It is really up to the military to determine whether or not armed citizens are required for their defense of the state. About every 10 years, the military should take a vote.

can you find a court case that is controlling (no) or a comment by the founders (no) and the rest of your claim is the typical outcome based garbage that the gun banners come up with to try to justify their treasonous nonsense.

You have been schooled that the purpose of the second amendment was to ratify a right the founders believed existed and was endowed upon man by the creator and that this natural RIGHT existed BEFORE the creation of formal government. That is undeniable when one reads the documents generated by the founders and the contemporary legal scholars such as St George Tucker. It is further supported by the Cruikshank case-about 80 years later. Your nonsensical unsupported interpretation would require the existence of a military run by a state for that right to vest. that is specious.

 

[TurtleDude]

One, you're reading the sentence completely wrong. The need for a well regulated militia is dependent upon an unrestricted right of the people to possess firearms, but it's not the only reason the right is protected. The preface states a sufficent but not necessary condition.

Two, the military has no legal power over the governance of the people. The civilian government tells the military what to do, not the other way around.

its amazing the level of fail we get from the gun banners as they try to rework the second amendment to support their unconstitutional cravings

 

[SCrider]

He's obviously mentally ill and someone who makes comments like that should not hold public office.

he also proves why the founders were so wise and why the second amendment is so important

Wow, his tweet zinged over head quickly.....

 

[Maccabee]

Nothing like a partial quote to interpret a statement out of context.

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.

I doubt even a rogue government will nuke it's own soil.