There is always someone willing to tell you how to live and take your money, it just happens most of them sit on the Extreme LEFT and RIGHT side of congress

Jack:

It didn't address "State Miitia". It addressed the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms to secure a "free state". Big difference. "State" was referring to the the entire country....and not individual "States'" militias.

I've never been a fan of any law that is in place to protect a person from himself.The problem is, practically everything is financiallyinter-woven these days.Each of these "rights" have a profoundfinancialimpact onsomebody else.

Take this weekend for example. Anti-fireworks laws... Sickening. Who cares if I want to put off mortars in my yard? It's my yard, my mortars, and my body. Stupid, right?

But, the flipside is that when some dumbass blows hishand off - who gets the bill? That's right. Everybody except him. The costs are diluted through the insurance system and passed on to the consumers. That's if he has insurance at all. Get Uncle Sam on the phone.

Same goes for drug use. I really couldn't care less if some junkie wants to smoke a pound of crack in a day. But, when they show up at a public clinic for detox with no money and a laundry list of health problems... It sucks.

Freedom has a price. In the 18th century, the price of freedom was measured in pints of blood and human life. In the 21st century, the price of freedom is financial. How much are you willing to pay for it?

If you want gun freedom, be prepared to build lots of prisons and pay the piper when the tax bill comes. If you want drug freedom, be prepared to foot the bill for a lot of healthcare and rehab. If you want free speech, be prepared to watch Muslims rally on the courthouse steps. Be ready to see gay porn on the news stand. If you want to be in charge of your own body, be ready to cope with it when you see a woman stroll into an abortion clinic.

Freedom is never free. And that's the problem.

Rybo: I just don't think the government could be much smaller than it currently is. Time and time and time again, Americans have showed that they cannot function without government intervention. Unless we, as a society, are prepared to watch the poor and downtrodden starve, die, and go without healthcare, Uncle Sam has to step in, where nobody else is willing. It's a total mess.

Were it not for governmental healthcare repricing standards, there isn't a damn soul who could ever afford healthcare. Private citizens aren't going to take money out of their savings to go out and build bridges and highways. Who else would administer the courts? Who would oversee welfare programs. If you have welfare programs, you have welfare abusers. That creates a need for enforcement officials. Army, Navy, AF, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard... Who is going to run the school system? These are just some of the things that private citizens would NEVER do.

Trust me, government dollars are stretched to the max - so it's not like Uncle Sam is out prospecting for new private ventures to invade. Sure, the Fed is a monster, but there's a definite limit as to how "lean" it can really become.

It's easy to sit at home and say "the government is too big." But when the rubber meets the road, it's necessary.

That time period mentioned is still very much rampant! I feel many time the government doesnt do enough to protect us. This is why I voted to keep the 2nd ammendment. As a youngster (compared to some) I've heard the stories of the men from long ago, and our great grandfather era etc. Sure would be nice to have one of these guys I've heard about in stories growing up as a kid from Great Grandpop back in office or in charge. Would have to think things would get straightened out in a hurry.

I love bowhunting, it is my passion, but being able to protect my family and loved ones from todays world, comes way before that.

Just my 2cents

The first 10 amendments (bill of rights) were pretty much written at the same time and would have been the most important insured rights preying upon the minds of the founders. Although there is no official order of importance, they did make a choice on the order (of the first 10, I'm talking). All of them are important but there is also no disclaimer saying " *these are in no particular order".

Thedeclaration of independence expresses the equality of all people

To keep citing other amendments that were added later isn't really relevant to the founding fathers frame of mind at the time of the bill of rights

And by the way, you have no idea how "a black man" feels about anything really do ya??? So it doesn't seem reasonable to specualte about that.

Fran:

Hence my stance on motorcycle helmet laws(and yes...I'm a former and future rider).

If the abolition of this law in states would come with the disclaimer that NO insurance; state or federal monies would be spent in the medical aid administered to the accident victims......I'd change my tune. That.....or every rider choosing to ride that way would be forced to aplly a "Do not Resuscitate" sticker to his gas tank.

To assign an order of importance to them is to question said "Frame of mind".

That's a little too neat and clean isn't it???

The price of freedom is not static. What it is for one person, it may not be for another. It may not be the same for the same person all the time.

Because it wasn't necessarily strictly relegated to a "state militia." The citizen army could be either raised at the request of the state - OR - by the people - as a check-and-balance against EITHER the sovereign states OR the Federal government.

I think the framers were just leaving it as flexible as possible.

If they would've left out "the right of the people" - it would've ONLY permitted a state-raised militia. By including this language, it expanded the scope of who could raise such a militia - both Citizens AND State.

The framers wanted the states and the people to each have the ability to raise an army, should the situation ever arise where either situation should have presented itself. This protects the States from Federal oppression, AND protects the citizens from State OR Federal oppression.

Jeff: I agree 100% on the Helmet law.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," (Samuel Adams)

You voiced my thoughts better than I possibly could. I hear so often people who have all the answers, and without fail it means automatically conforming to their mindset, beliefs, and values. How the heck is that supposed to work with most of us not even able to agree on scentloc, the almighty rage, gospel, not to mention giraffe hunting?

I am sure I was chalked up as 'anti-gun' - or maybe even socialist! - by some from being so impudent earlier as to question the mentality of a all or nothing emotion based approach (the heart of my 'jihad' comment). Nothing is further from the truth.