In terms of the collective right argument:
If I'm not mistaken the collective right argument is that we have a right to bear arms collectively for our common defense which they associate with membership in a militia. They say today's militia equivalent is the National Guard.
The national guard is in fact a military force, not a militia force. Would that really need LEGAL protection of the 2A to possess firearms? Is the national government really going to take away the National Guard's ability to have guns? It seems essentially just plain stupid to me to say that the 2A protects the National Guard's right to have firearms when its basically in their job description.
So my question is: "Are anti-2A advocates essentially saying that the 2A protects the National Guard?"
If I'm not mistaken the collective right argument is that we have a right to bear arms collectively for our common defense which they associate with membership in a militia. They say today's militia equivalent is the National Guard.
The national guard is in fact a military force, not a militia force. Would that really need LEGAL protection of the 2A to possess firearms? Is the national government really going to take away the National Guard's ability to have guns? It seems essentially just plain stupid to me to say that the 2A protects the National Guard's right to have firearms when its basically in their job description.
So my question is: "Are anti-2A advocates essentially saying that the 2A protects the National Guard?"