I check the gun banners' websites regularly and I've noticed something that has always been disturbing, but I have yet to see anyone on our side point it out: the brady banners are actually pro militia in their reading of the second amendment (see image below, which is prominent on several gun ban sites):
Clearly there are two reasons for this disturbing phenomenon.
1. Brady knows that americans are totally defenseless in that nearly all of the state and local militias have been destroyed. Brady knows that americans utterly refuse to form local militias, mostly for fear of embarrassment. Brady knows that there is zero chance of the militias being properly restored by the states OR citizens.
2. Brady seems ignorant of the U.S. code's definition of militia, but that doesn't seem to matter because Brady constantly argues that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted as ONLY protecting militias-which brady knows mostly no longer exist. Brady also knows that the courts won't do the correct thing and extend that militia protection to citizens, even though that is the crystal clear intent of the wording of the 2nd amendment AND of the founders.
Bottom line: since 100% of the states refuse to form militias, Brady is very comfortable that we have no right to own any firearm. Brady doesn't even have to lie and claim that the national guard is the 2nd amendment militia because the issue is dead because the actual 2nd amendment militias are mostly gone. If anybody pushed it with them though, Brady is not afraid to lie and say the national guard is the 2nd amendment militia because they know that no reporter is going to challenge them and ask "Why on earth are you arguing that the 2nd amendment protects the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (national guard) from having their guns taken away, and why would the founders create such an absurd protection when the rest of the bill of rights protects the citizen?"
Clearly there are two reasons for this disturbing phenomenon.
1. Brady knows that americans are totally defenseless in that nearly all of the state and local militias have been destroyed. Brady knows that americans utterly refuse to form local militias, mostly for fear of embarrassment. Brady knows that there is zero chance of the militias being properly restored by the states OR citizens.
2. Brady seems ignorant of the U.S. code's definition of militia, but that doesn't seem to matter because Brady constantly argues that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted as ONLY protecting militias-which brady knows mostly no longer exist. Brady also knows that the courts won't do the correct thing and extend that militia protection to citizens, even though that is the crystal clear intent of the wording of the 2nd amendment AND of the founders.
Bottom line: since 100% of the states refuse to form militias, Brady is very comfortable that we have no right to own any firearm. Brady doesn't even have to lie and claim that the national guard is the 2nd amendment militia because the issue is dead because the actual 2nd amendment militias are mostly gone. If anybody pushed it with them though, Brady is not afraid to lie and say the national guard is the 2nd amendment militia because they know that no reporter is going to challenge them and ask "Why on earth are you arguing that the 2nd amendment protects the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (national guard) from having their guns taken away, and why would the founders create such an absurd protection when the rest of the bill of rights protects the citizen?"
(Probably would be sold by the government too)