Gun owners are in the minority, yet somehow they achieve political goals by being better organized, better financed, more unified, and more motivated than people that want more regulation.
This makes you unhappy. You complain about "bullies" and "political threats", when your side would do the exact same thing if positions were reversed.
People vote for lots of reasons, from in-depth analysis and research to "I like his name". The gun-rights block gets enough people voting a certain way for a specific reason, which gets a certain electoral result after the votes are tallied up. But since it doesn't go your way...
Nobody is saying the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. YOU'RE saying that other people are saying it, which is not the same thing at all.
HOWEVER, neither is militia service tied to gun ownership. If this was true, then only women on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the Guard, would have the right to own a gun, while tens of millions of men would.
The 'militia' clause has been used by the courts to justify federal limitation of types of weapons sold. It's why I can't own a shotgun or rifle with a 12" barrel unless I get a very special permit... such a gun is not in common use among the military, thus having one does not prepare a man for military service, nor give him a militarily-useful gun should he be called up.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read