[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER Well lest you forget there are more veterans of our armed forces in the public than are presently serving. And don’t forget that you will have an exodus of soldiers that would leave the military, were they ordered to turn their guns on the American public. Not to mention those in the government and military who would sympathize with the revolutionaries. I am not saying that our military isn’t the greatest fighting force ever assembled but remember they will be turning their guns on their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children that will not sit well with them. Our military is not a mindless killing machine.

My, you're certainly having fun inventing circumstances favorable to your fantasy. Let's see...

-- Veterans tend to be more conservative and more loyal to the government than most citizens.

-- Veterans still won't have access to the military's arsenal.

-- The Civil War has already proven that Americans are perfectly capable of doing just that and under the armed rebellion scenario, it's the rebels who have turned their guns on America and the military who's defending their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children from the rebels.

-- And yes, as much as they can possibly train them to be, the military is a mindless killing machine. That's why the more violent video games are so insidious... they use the same process of depersonalizing killing and violence that the military does.

But let's imagine your best case scenario, in which all across America millions of armed rebels take up against the military might of the U.S. government. What we're talking about is a bloodbath the likes of which you can't imagine. You really think that's what the founders had in mind?

Quote by: TRIGGER So this rabble may be disorganized at first as were the militias in the first revolution, but they won’t be for long. Also consider that what the revolt would look like, the rabble as you call it wouldn’t be an army it would be gorillas blending in to the public taking advantage of every weakness as they organize

Right... cuz it's working so well in Iraq.

Quote by: TRIGGER Also you may want to consider other factors remember the American public is 300 million strong and growing that, could make it up to as much as 200 to 1 that is a numerical advantage that cannot be ignored.

You're saying that if all 300 million Americans were opposed to the government, they couldn't find a better way to remove it than armed rebellion?? Jeez, we really are a sick society.

Quote by: TRIGGER Remember that Samuel Adams reassured the colonists with this “It is dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control. The militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

I live in San Diego, California, home of one-third of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, MCRD and Camp Pendleton Marine Corp training center and Miramar Marine Corp Air Base.

And no militia anywhere to be seen. Yet the military, as it has been for the past 200 years, is under firm civilian control.

You're living in a dreamland, TRIGGER. Read where Adams discusses the militia in terms of the reality that the vast majority of the borders of the 13 states sit on wilderness frontier, far from the centers of political power, and therefore in desperate need of a militia that can be quickly called upon when needed.

That sound like the country you live in???

I think you may want to retract your argument on Miller. Obviously you haven’t read it.

I've read it many times, as well as the 8 Courts of Appeals the affirm and expand on it. For example...

9th Circuit Court, Silveira v Lockyer

--"Our court, like every other federal court of appeals to reach the issue except for the Fifth Circuit, has interpreted Miller as rejecting the traditional individual rights view. In Hickman v. Block, we held that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." 81 F.3d at 102 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Like the other courts, we reached our conclusion regarding the Second Amendment's scope largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate over [*22] the force of the amendment. See id.

After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . .

IV. [*106] CONCLUSION

Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED."--

3rd Circuit Court, United States v. Rybar

4th Circuit Court, Love v. Peppersack

6th Circuit Court, United States v. Warin

7th Circuit Court, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis

8th Circuit Court, United States v. Hale

11th Circuit Court, United States v. Adams

Quote by: TRIGGER Quoting Miller... --"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Meaning that you have the right to bear arms provided that it is necessary for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I, Section 8 "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." Meaning that the 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of maintaining the militia as a viable military defense for the new nation, and ONLY for that purpose. "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." How clear does it have to be? A >>WELL REGULATED MILITIA<< when called for service and expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves.. Does that sound remotely like anything that exists today? Therefore there are NO personally owned weapon that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Quote by: TRIGGER Since Miller, Layton or their legal counsel did not appeared before the court it is debatable whether the decision was anything more than a default decision.

Not based on the majority of subsequent lower court decisions such as those linked above.

Well true, but consider this how would you propose the Air Force and Navy would be useful in this type of fight. It would be an imposable task for them to engage the revolt with out amassing huge civilian casualties in the process.

There you go... inciting an armed rebellion would be inciting a blood bath, and air and naval forces would be called upon in manners similar to fighting insurgencies elsewhere. Sure, the government might exercise more caution than it does abroad, but in the end it will use whatever force necessary to end the revolt. What the government will NOT do is throw up their hands, shout "Boy, you guys are too tough for us" and surrender... at least not until the country is sufficiently awash in blood.

Sorry TRIGGER, but there really are much, much better ways to resolve such issues, the most effective being to simply take to the streets in mass protests and civil disobedience.

Unless, of course, you'd actually PREFER a blood bath. That your idea of a swell time, "TRIGGER"?

.