Is the Second Amendment providing for "a well-regulated militia" a constitutional protection for a white supremacist armed with an assault rifle to kill 22 people and wound 26 in El Paso before surrendering to police?
Six of the nine people killed in Dayton were black.
Does providing for a "well-regulated militia" justify the fact that in 2017 and 2018, according to the New America Analysis Center, violence from the far right claimed more victims in the United States than jihadist attacks?
And how does a "well-regulated militia" equate to the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival near San Jose, California by 19-year-old Santino William Legan who used an AK-47-style rifle to randomly shoot people? Legan killed a six-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl and a man in his 20s, before being killed by the police at the scene. That took the death toll to four, along with 13 injured.
A probe into Legan’s reading habits found that he had recommended the book Might is Right, which promotes racism, sexism and anarchism.
So far, at least 16 high-profile attacks have been motivated by white nationalist conspiracy theories. How are they protected by the Second Amendment which provides for "a well-regulated militia..." to own firearms?
We could go on and one, but you get the idea. Allowing white supremacist idiots with hate in their hearts toward everyone who is not like them to possess military-style assault weapons in no way justifies protecting them under the Second Amendment which says that a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What is so well-regulated about that?