see that's the issue again, in the meaning of words having changed. A militia isn't necessarily an organised group that we think of as a militia. In this context it meant men of arms-bearing age. That's the point the guy is making.
Yes. And it mean effectiveness. Not state mandated oversight. The founders didn't want men to be showing up to face common enemies with crappy turkey shooters (or weapons for deer as Biden would want). Founders wanted the common man (who isnt blind or retarded) to have unrestricted access to the best man-killing guns.
see that's the issue again, in the meaning of words having changed. A militia isn't necessarily an organised group that we think of as a militia. In this context it meant men of arms-bearing age. That's the point the guy is making.
Yes. And it mean effectiveness. Not state mandated oversight. The founders didn't want men to be showing up to face common enemies with crappy turkey shooters (or weapons for deer as Biden would want). Founders wanted the common man (who isnt blind or retarded) to have unrestricted access to the best man-killing guns.
That included cannons too. In that age, many cannons were privately owned.
So by the Constitution, yes - we should be privately allowed to own ANY arms the military has.