[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Sonart .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.

.

I am sure that the German people felt the same way you do till Hitler took power. That my friend is a fallacy conservatives are more critical and distrustful of the government and loyal to the constitution. Liberals are the ones who trust the government since they want the government involved in every aspect of their lives, depending of course on whose in power.

Quote by: Sonart . -- Veterans still won't have access to the military's arsenal.

.

They don't have to. There are arsenals all over the US just waiting to be broken in to. But there are also military weapons all over the US in private hands registered and unregistered. In New Hampshire in the seventies a National Guard armory was broken in to. Hundreds of M16's were stolen and none were ever recovered.

Quote by: Sonart . 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.

.

For a revolution to get started in the US, the government would have to do something so egregious that the people would rise up against them. Starting with civil disobedience in this phase of the struggle. If the government were to lets say have its army to turn their guns on the disobedient public to quell the up rising this is where an armed revolt would start. The revolt is not something that would start over political differences but by an egregious act perpetrated by a tyrannical government. This is why the scenario you have described above would not happen. Since the revolutionaries would be the ones protecting the public not the military. It would start just as the first American Revolution did if it were to happen.

Quote by: Sonart .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.

.

If you are correct on this then an armed public is more essential then ever in the defense against this mindless killing machine that is stationed among us over which the public has no control.

Quote by: Sonart .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?

.

If it means protecting the public against that mindless killing machine that you have referred to then yes. If the government were to suspend the constitution and quell the civil disobedience with gun fire from its mindless killing machine then yes. Just remember the words of Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.”

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

Quote by: Sonart .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.

.

You are missing the point, maybe I should have been clearer. As in any conflict armed conflict is the last resort. You start with the vote if they allowed to vote and if they don’t tamper with vote. Then civil disobedience, that is if the military doesn’t cut you down. Since they are a mindless killing machine as you claim. If these circumstances came to fruition I would say you are living under tyrannical rule, this is where the militia would be handy but all the above would only be possible if the public were disarmed.

Quote by: Sonart .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 that has to do with this discussion, how?

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

.

Yes the militia is there you are just too ignorant to see it. By the founders definition all you have to do is look in the mirror. The military takes its orders from federal government. And has never been under civilian control. But the militia by the founder’s definition is under every civilian’s control.

Quote by: Sonart .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.

.

Not really you would like me to though. As all the founders mentioned that the militia is a check against the government and the standing army but also as a form of national defense.

Quote by: Sonart .I have 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."--

This is the only case that used Miller and it is also the only court to do it. But I want you to know that as I said Miller is about title 2 firearms not regular guns and for the 9th, the most over turned court in the nation (like 90% + of its decisions are later over turned by SCOTUS) I am not surprised with it’s decision.