[Sonart]

Judicial activism means nothing.

{{yawn}} Unless it benefits conservatives, as in the Schaivo case. You think court rulings mean nothing? Then go ahead... violate a ruling.

Quote by: bandaid The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied

U.S. Supreme Court, 1939, United States v. Miller

--"THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; 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." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

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. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR
SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS, BOOK V, CH. 1, CONTAINS AN EXTENDED ACCOUNT OF THE MILITIA. IT IS THERE SAID: "MEN OF REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN JEALOUS OF A STANDING ARMY AS DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY." "IN A MILITIA, THE CHARACTER OF THE LABOURER, ARTIFICER, OR TRADESMAN, PREDOMINATES OVER THAT OF THE SOLDIER: IN A STANDING ARMY, THAT OF THE SOLDIER PREDOMINATES OVER EVERY OTHER CHARACTER; AND IN THIS DISTINCTION SEEMS TO CONSIST THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MILITARY FORCE." "--

We have a bill of rights, and rights cannot, by definition, be taken away.

I've seen nothing that removes your right to bear arms, provided that such arms are necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I Section 8.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I will just never understand why people like yourself do not move to a more oppressive country, and live under pre-existing restrictive laws, instead of trying to remove my rights.

Since the as yet unchallenged Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment dates back to before I was born, it's always been the law of the land as far as I've been concerned and I'm content with it. If you, on the other hand, can't abide living under the law of the land, then perhaps it is you who should seek residence somewhere where people really value gun ownership... the Moslem mideast, perhaps.


.