"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


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



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions.

- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of
the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the
discipline prescribed by congress.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces
(with the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then
isn't it up to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for
example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State."

In some states their Constitutions say the right to bear arms "shall not
be questioned"..

We are a union of states. The Federal Gov't has no voice in gun control,
it doesn't even have the power to regulate gun ownership. That is left to
the states and the people respectively.

More guns!









Unfortunately the guns are usually taken away from the people who are safe
with them and the criminals wind up the only ones being armed. I fear the
government that wants to take away my guns.