Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc



Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of
Federal Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the
"reasonable relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation
between the intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of
well regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts
have not interpreted any of the amendments as being universally
applicable under all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting
our right to own rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which
would be necessary to defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause
of the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL
REGULATED militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case
decided in the 19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what
they don't like, not something they support or endorse.

Jim