I don't know... A bunch of poorly armed Afghans kicked the Russkies out of Afghanistan. And, we're having a not entirely easy time in Iraq...

And there are a lot of us that already served, were trainedon the government's dime (our money) to kill people and break stuff, and taught the guys that are leading the military now. And I'm in shape....round is a shape, isn't it?

Yes, round is a shape... I'm more "pear". I don't have your training, but, I know my way around and M1A, an AR15, and a 1911... having used them all in practical shooting competitions. I'd be more than happy to join forces with someone with more practical experience.

I can hunt out of a tree stand and I can cook. Any more room available?

Oh yeah I'll also bring the tp incase they fire that fancy cannon at us.

Tom

How many of you are NRA members?

I'm a life member and wonder why others arent, what are we doing to stand together to protect our rights?

Quote:

"that Madison's intent was to have armed private citizens."

As was Jefferson's and George Mason's as well, to name but a few of like mind in this matter!

I don't believe the presenters of the current case explored the concept of the milita in their arguments the other day. Most people erroneously regard the National Guard as today's "militia", when in fact the National Guard is only one part of the whole of the militia -it is the "Organized Militia".

In the days of the founding fathers, the militia consisted of "ALL able-bodied male citizensbetween the ages of 17 and 45, except for a few public officials and members of the standing Army".... Therefore, even if the 2nd Amendment ONLY meant the militia, the militia was practically everyone in those days. Most people do not know this, but the Federal Law which STILL EXISTS establishing the militiaOF TODAY defines the militia in almost exactly the same terms, except that the "male" citizens phrase is now assumed to include females as well.

[quote]Incidentally, if the question is whether "militia" in the Second Amendment means just something like the National Guard, that's one thing that the Supreme Court has resolved: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (Today, after the Court's sex equality cases under the Fourteenth Amendment, it would likely include women, too.) The Militia Act of 1792 took a similar view, as does the currently effective Militia Act.

B. The currently effective Militia Act:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." A.

Sources on the Second Amendment
and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

A. The forgoing definition includeseveryone else physically capable of performing militia duty!! Since the various governments do not possess sufficient stockpiles of weapons to arm all of us, I assume we would still be expected to report for duty with privately-owned arms......

The problems you guys in the U.S. are facing are very similar to what we are facing in Canada as well as the rest of the civilized world. As long as bleeding heart liberals look at crime control as the control of the general population as well as prison for re-abilitation then we are all f*&%ed. Never mind stiffer, use the words Harsh and Hard to describe pennalties awarded to those who commit violent crime. Eliminate the legal rights of the individual who is convicted (beyond all doubt) of such crimes, and either euthanise them or have them do hard labour for many, many, years. The vast majority of those that own firearms are law abiding, productive citizens of their societies yet they are always tainted with the same brush as those that are violent offenders.

We here in the U.S. have been facing the do-gooders liberals, power seekers, and gun grabbers for just one helluva long time. It's been happening so long that in his book "The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle", Ned Roberts predictedthat even .22's would be illegal in a few years. And that prediction was madein the 1920's!

So far, we have "won a few & lost a few", but at the present time, the good guys are winning more than we are losing. I point to the growing number of states in which concealed carry of handguns on a "shall issue" basis is being passed.While it is vconceivable that the Supreme Court may find that the cities like D.C. with large populations have some ability to regulate how firearms are used for self-defense purposes, I do believe the Court will find in favor of the proposition that the possession of arms is an individual right. However, I have seen some decisions by various courts that defiedlogic, reason, and even factual evidence. Sometimes it is impossible to decipher how the legal mind works!

Have NO IDEA how the fight will shape up if Obam,a or Hillary get elected! Historically, the Dems have done us a lot of harm, starting with LBJ!! JFK, Harry Truman, and FDR were ALL members of the NRA!

Let me ask you, how many of you live in D.C.?
Because it is my understanding that this case before the Supreme Court deals exclusively with gun laws in DC only!

Frankly, I don't care. I am keeping my guns, will get more when I can afford them, and will never give them up. Run off to the hills??! I think not. I'll be sitting on my porch letting all to see!

Solution: I'm no lawyer (though I play one on TV)
{IT'S A JOKE SON!}
But wouldn't it be easy for our congress to pass an Amendment, or law, or whatever they do to just put into plain words that we,the qualified American citizen, have the right to own guns? How is that so hard?

The only thing our congress can agree on is voting themselve massive pay raises, and voting themselve one heck of a retirement plan (they get 100% of what they make while serving, adjusted for inflation, for the rest of their lives).