How come the only time the MIC finds favor on DU is when it involves gun control?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. My first premise is -- the assumption the MIC obviates the need for a militia.

Are you seriously suggesting this line of argument has never been posed by the gun control regulars? This is your challenge to me? Because if it is, any claim of ignorance of such posts by you is seriously revealing about either your attention to the debate or duplicity on your part. Assuming you aren't lying in a fit of pique then you should be prepared to be disappointed by those who are presumably your peers in gun control advocacy.

To wit --

Fine, we don't need a militia nowadays. So leave you guns at home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=57571

So is there no longer any need for any "Militias"

In fact since they were deliberately left out of this Extreme Court Decision I would say those that currently exist are now nothing more than armed gangs and should be forcibly broken up..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3534667

Not only that, but since the 1903 militia act, there has been no 'well regulated' citizens militia as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Since the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion, so should the 2ndA, since it has become obsolete & worthless. You no more need the 2ndA to purchase a firearm today than you need first amendment rights to talk to yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129165#post22

So, how about you? Do you think the MIC has obviated the need for an armed citizenry?