U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Yes, I said Constitution when I should have said Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights, my apologies.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention "unalienable rights". That phrase only exists in the Declaration of Independence, which, despite your defining it as one of the "Charters of Freedom", is not a legal document. It's simply a list of grievances published as a PR document to justify our rebellion to the world. They do, in fact, contradict each other, as when the Declaration declares that all men are created equal, while the Constitution recognises the institution of slavery declares their specific value at 3/5s of a person.

Quote by: Osborn Now see, thats an allegation that demands proof, showing cause and effect, using logic, measuring up to the "objective standard" on a legal basis.

LIke your allegation that we're overdue for an armed rebellion against the government?

Quote by: Osborn Indeed, they do, WHILE and ONLY with the sanction and conscent of the people. Sanction and conscent are a hot topic, if you haven't noticed..... We reserve the right to remove sanction, and remove conscent.

And as I keep pointing out, the gun lobby gun rights activists have had more than ample opportunity --- almost 70 years now --- to argue the "sanction and consent" before the Court, yet have clearly chosen not to.

So why is that?

Quote by: Osborn Point being, not all 2nd amendment or rights respecting people use the argument of "creator" or "god", which is all I was trying to make clear.

I don't care. Brien brought it up, I responded to brien's point, that's it. Why do you keep bringing it up if its not worth arguing?

Quote by: Osborn Tell me what part of this you don't understand!

Where in the Constitution it says, in clear language, that I have the 'Right' to travel freely? Not commerce... travel.

Quote by: Osborn Don't be a fool. You have the right to hunt for food using a firearm, and you have the right to use that same firearm for defense of life, liberty or property.

And, according to you, to use that firearm to steal food necessary to feed myself and my family, but not the right to cross a sovereign border to feed myself and my family. You're calling me a fool while evading my point.

Quote by: Osborn So, you should have no problem finding a more suitable nation to live in, since our right bear arms is non-negotiable, and you find it so "distasteful" to your principals?

But we DO have gun control laws in the U.S., and I agree with the Supreme Court precedent on owning firearms.

In fact, quite to the contrary, it is YOU who is currently advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and is vehemently opposed to the current Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

I daresay it's YOU that needs to decide whether, given the current laws of the land, you can live here or not.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Unconstitutional according to whom?

Quote by: Osborn Regardless, in the United States the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, which is unalienable.

Not according to the Supreme Court, which, according to the Constitution of the United States, decides what rights the Constitution does or does not give you.

Quote by: Osborn Now, I have no problem respecting your right NOT to own arms. You should have no problem respecting my right to own arms.

{{SIGH}} What right is that? I've stated that I own a firearm. I've availed myself of that privilege, and I respect your privilege to do likewise.

I should also point out the overwhelmingly obvious fact Sonart.

{{SIGH}} The fact that people own firearms does not make it a 'Constitutional Right' any more than the fact that people own automobiles makes it their 'Constitutional Right'. To point out the equally overwhelmingly obvious, the government has placed a great deal of restrictions on the privilege of owning firearms.

.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why did the US Military used to allow soldiers returning from WWII to keep their service arms?

...

That doesn't sound right, do you have a cite for that (hell, even a book, I could use another WW2 book)? Was that just Garands or BARs, Thompsons, and carbines? I know officers could opt to keep their sidearms, that's always been the case, but I think you're exaggerating a bit there.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention "unalienable rights". That phrase only exists in the Declaration of Independence, which, despite your defining it as one of the "Charters of Freedom", is not a legal document. It's simply a list of grievances published as a PR document to justify our rebellion to the world.

A PR document?!? LOL

Yes, a PR document that could be used again, in any similar situation, as could the precedent it set.

Sonart said: They do, in fact, contradict each other, as when the Declaration declares that all men are created equal, while the Constitution recognises the institution of slavery declares their specific value at 3/5s of a person.

And what was used to free the slaves? What platform of logic was put forth as the PRESIDING argument?

Sonart said: LIke your allegation that we're overdue for an armed rebellion against the government?

I have started multiple threads, and listed multiple arguments to support my side of that argument, and most of those deal with the steps OUR GOVERNMENT led by the bi-partisan monopoly on power for the last 157 years has been making regular practice at usurping, subverting and evading Constitutional limitations.

Yes, that is grounds for revolt if no other actions can achieve the goal peacefully. Shouldn't that be obvious.

What else do you suggest when the government, the police, the three branches make a habit of not policing themselves, nor recognizing peoples GROSS dissatisfaction. (have you checked their "approval ratings" lately?)

Seems most people are quite dissatisfied, yet there is still inaction by government to rectify it.... could it be no threat of being "replaced" by another party, another "uncorrupted" group of people?

Please....

Sonart said: And as I keep pointing out, the gun lobby gun rights activists have had more than ample opportunity --- almost 70 years now --- to argue the "sanction and consent" before the Court, yet have clearly chosen not to. So why is that?

Gun owners attempting to be tolerant as long as their rights were basicly respected, in order to prevent bloodshed and needless killing maybe??

People valuing society?

I think it should be obvious by the amount of treason the people have allowed, they are more than willing to work within the system if the system would recognize the peoples rights to do so.

The fact is, its obvious fact we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Shall I send you a gun catalog? You can review their shipping policy if you want.

Sonart said: Where in the Constitution it says, in clear language, that I have the 'Right' to travel freely? Not commerce... travel.

Not all rights are enumerated, or isn't that obvious? In fact, just to clarify that fact, to make it so obvious even the most OBLIVIOUS could see it, they wrote a SPECIFIC AMENDMENT for it.

Can you guess which one? (this is a 5pt question, and if you miss it, you can't get into double jeapordy)

Sonart said: And, according to you, to use that firearm to steal food necessary to feed myself and my family, but not the right to cross a sovereign border to feed myself and my family.

I call you to the carpet sir...

Show me where I said it was ever "ok to steal".

Sonart said: You're calling me a fool while evading my point.

I didn't call you a fool, I said don't be a fool.

IF you don't want to be a fool, don't play the fool. Accusing me of saying something I didn't say, is foolish. Is that what you've done?

Sonart said: Unconstitutional according to whom?

Anyone can oppose a standing law, and there are prescribed processes to do it.

You, yes YOU can have an opinion, and attempt to change a law. You CAN NOT however change the fact that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Law is changeable, rights are unalienable. Entitlements can be withdrawn, rights are unalienable. Governments can be removed, and have been, because rights are unalienable.

What would you do if tomorrow the entire government revoked all standing rights in the BOR? No more free press, no more right to free speech, no more right to property, no right to private free-will mutual conscent contracts, no right to defense or privacy..... What would your reaction be sir?

Sonart said: Not according to the Supreme Court, which, according to the Constitution of the United States, decides what rights the Constitution does or does not give you.

Ok, you have the "A" side of the equation.... now for the closer....

The "B" side of the equation is the FACT that without conscent of the people, the government has no authority.

So I ask you Sonart.... in order, what methods can the people "change their conscent"? List their choices for doing so please.

Sonart said: {{SIGH}} What right is that? I've stated that I own a firearm. I've availed myself of that privilege, and I respect your privilege to do likewise.

Hypocrisy is so priceless, but owning a gun is not a privlidge, its a right.

Sonart said: the government has placed a great deal of restrictions on the privilege of owning firearms.

They have put many needless restrictions on peoples liberty, and abused the Constitution and BOR as most people do toilet paper, but I see in no way where you derive the "Constitutionality" of such nonsense.

They have every right to regulate the use of, as in, its unlawful to shoot in the "public square" unless assaulted with deadly force, as well as they have the right to punish people for unlawful use as a tool to remove rights from innocent people. They don't have the authority to ban firearms, ban ownership, or ban lawful use of firearms for defense, or to so limit firearms access through pricing or applicability to prevent them from adequate protection from tyranny.

[Osborn F Enready]

shawmutt said: That doesn't sound right, do you have a cite for that (hell, even a book, I could use another WW2 book)? Was that just Garands or BARs, Thompsons, and carbines? I know officers could opt to keep their sidearms, that's always been the case, but I think you're exaggerating a bit there.

I have heard that from several places, but I would have to search for a recent one to cite as a source.

Heres one:
Bill Would Let U.S. Veterans Register Trophy Guns

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zeebadee I find it ironic that those who clamor the most about "constitutional rights" are also the most vocal about defying that document when it goes against them.

That's not the document flip flopping over to the other side, that's the "Liberal" interpretation of it that's flip flopping.


Only the hard core commies, and their Liberal appointees on the SCOTUS think that this far along in the experiment, that a legitimate argument against "arms" can be made. I mean, really, look at the myriad of things that could never have happened if the true interpretation was that arms were to be regulated "through" the Militia. However that is not the language used, and that is not the case.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have heard that from several places, but I would have to search for a recent one to cite as a source. Heres one: Bill Would Let U.S. Veterans Register Trophy Guns

Registering a curio/relic is a far cry from what you were implying when you first stated it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The "B" side of the equation is the FACT that without conscent of the people, the government has no authority. So I ask you Sonart.... in order, what methods can the people "change their conscent"? List their choices for doing so please.

There are at least several methods that can be used - recall, impeachment, votes.

If you can't get people to band together and try any of these, how can you realistically expect them to rise up in armed revolt??

[another day]

Quote by: Zeebadee There are at least several methods that can be used - recall, impeachment, votes. If you can't get people to band together and try any of these, how can you realistically expect them to rise up in armed revolt??

Unfortunatly, all those peaceful methods you listed are useless because the very same corrupt government you are trying to overthrow, controls those processes.

And he never said he expected people to do so. He just said it's necessary. Unfortunatly, if it ever happened, the government would murder anyone that tried to do anything...Their technology and weapons are just far too great for anythign the public can gather up. The only hope would be for the soldiers to see that attacking the public would be wrong. Unfortunatly, that is also unlikely because cops and soldiers are often the type of people who cling to authority and power in order to avoid being victimized by it themselves.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: another day Unfortunatly, that is also unlikely because cops and soldiers are often the type of people who cling to authority and power in order to avoid being victimized by it themselves.

That is profound, and hopefully wrong.


I'm hoping that your previous observation...

Quote by: another day The only hope would be for the soldiers to see that attacking the public would be wrong.

...would hold true.


The problem is that the sides are so completely divided now that I can actually imagine the extreme Left, and the extreme Right firing on one another. The hatred is palpable. ( ...and in my opinion, justifiable. )

[shawmutt]

Unfortunatly, all those peaceful methods you listed are useless because the very same corrupt government you are trying to overthrow, controls those processes.

LOL if this is a corrupt government what does that mean for most of Africa and South America--hell, most of the world? What would you call those governments? We need a nice uprising of "normal citizens", then we would find out what "corrupt" means.

[Osborn F Enready]

Shawmutt said: Registering a curio/relic is a far cry from what you were implying when you first stated it.

I stand behind what I implied, and if you actually get off your can and do some looking, you can find that out for yourself.

There were several soldiers who brought back BAR's, Thompsons, Garands, etc.

Zee said: There are at least several methods that can be used - recall, impeachment, votes. If you can't get people to band together and try any of these, how can you realistically expect them to rise up in armed revolt??

Firstly, I am doing quite well in playing my part to awaken people to the unConstitutional actions of their government.

Secondly, and AGAIN, I am not trying to START, LEAD OR FOSTER an armed revolt. I pointed out how the development of an armed revolt wouldn't suprise me, nor would I necessarily decline participation.

My name is on several lists calling for impeachment for several elected representatives, as well as I protest and march whenever an opprotunity arises, and sometimes I start a protest.

I just recently did a protest on "stop-light" cameras here in Toledo, and marched in front of our local news station in downtown Toledo with some local supporters.

Another Day said: Their technology and weapons are just far too great for anythign the public can gather up.

Simply not true.

As I have said repeatedly, training is what makes the difference.... unit cohesion and tactics. Weapons are only tools.

There is nothing available to the military that average people can't match, except explosives. Explosives can be made, and their not required to launch an effective guerilla campaign during a revolt in a nation such as ours.

Another Day said: The only hope would be for the soldiers to see that attacking the public would be wrong.

Exactly, and there are many ex-military out there just like me, and more trained than I, who would refuse to committ such madness, and join the rebellion.

Another Day said: Unfortunatly, that is also unlikely because cops and soldiers are often the type of people who cling to authority and power in order to avoid being victimized by it themselves.

That is becoming more and more of trend as the nations "political parties" attempt to further divide their base along narrower and narrower lines of seperation.

Shawmutt said: LOL if this is a corrupt government what does that mean for most of Africa and South America--hell, most of the world?

That many are MORE corrupt. Point?

Are you saying since ours is less corrupt, less criminal in some cases, less treasonous, we should just bend over and take it? How absurd.

Shawmutt said: What would you call those governments? We need a nice uprising of "normal citizens", then we would find out what "corrupt" means.

A lot of us know what "corrupt" means without using a "relative comparison" between nations that are worse off, with 1/100th the budget.

[LOGAN]

Why break up a set? The courts should just issue an "opinion" that holds all ten bill of rights amendments inferior to their 'civil servant' unelected asses, that simply states......where's the lubricant, WE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NEED IT. Logan

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Now see, thats an allegation that demands proof, showing cause and effect, using logic, measuring up to the "objective standard" on a legal basis.

If you opened your eyes, the proof's all around you.

I've shown where, based on data, the United States is the most gun murderous wealthy nation on earth and, depending on which criteria you go by, the 8th to 24th most murderous, gun addled nation on earth, period.

We know for a fact that cultural media can influence the level of violence among young people...


Review of Research shows that playing violent video games can heighten aggression -- Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D.

Violent Video Games Produce Violent Behavior -- Two studies by psychologists Craig Anderson and Karen Dill

And we know that violent video games are only the most recent addition to the cultural immersion of gun violence that generation upon generation of Americans have fed upon, that for generations parents have been complaining about the levels of sex and violence in American pop culture, based only on the suspicions of what the video game studies have now proven... that violence in popular media breeds more aggressive young people.

America came of age glorifying the mythology of the Wild West, starting with America's first contribution to world culture, Bill Cody's Wild West Show and the dime novel. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the Western was the staple of American film and early television, and by the standards of the American western, problems were always, always, ALWAYS solved by gunfire. By the standards of the Western, if you weren't handy with a gun, you were nuthin' but a helpless dirt farmer.

Even post-WWII, when westerns slowly updated to the war/crime dramas, the good guys always won out by out gunning the bad guys, week after week, despite the fact that any cop will tell you they could count the number of times they've drawn their weapons in their entire careers on maybe a couple of fingers.

By tradition, non-American detectives solve their crimes through wit... Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, the Queens of Crime -- Agatha Christy, Dorothy L. Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham, etc.

American detectives solved theirs through tough "hard-boiled" attitudes and firearms -- Dashiell Hammett, Jonathan Latimer, Erle Stanley Gardner, Raymond Chandler, etc.

Of course, your response will be to blame the media, not guns. But the media only reflects the culture that surrounds it, and the culture that surrounds all Americans is one that revels in gun violence.

Quote by: Osborn Yes, a PR document that could be used again, in any similar situation, as could the precedent it set.

As several have pointed out, no... not against the modern U.S. military. As to your point about soldiers not firing on American citizens -- if those citizens are ARMED, as you advocate, then you bet our troops will fire. Again, the Civil War proved that.

Quote by: Osborn Seems most people are quite dissatisfied, yet there is still inaction by government to rectify it.... could it be no threat of being "replaced" by another party, another "uncorrupted" group of people?

Maybe, but not nearly to the point of armed rebellion... not anywhere near. But you and your pals go right ahead. We'll be right behind you.

Quote by: Osborn Gun owners attempting to be tolerant as long as their rights were basicly respected, in order to prevent bloodshed and needless killing maybe?? People valuing society?

These are the reasons the gun lobby hasn't challenged laws before the Supreme Court??? This is just plain silly, laws are challenged on constitutional questions every year, without violence. Please share with me when a recent Supreme Court ruling has resulted in bloodshed? Or is it just the naturally violent nature of gun owners that you somehow don't trust?

Quote by: Osborn Shall I send you a gun catalog? You can review their shipping policy if you want.

Once again, just because it's not ILLEGAL for you to own a gun, doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to.

It's not illegal to own a dog, either. That doesn't mean I have a Constitutional Right to own one.

Quote by: Osborn Not all rights are enumerated, or isn't that obvious? In fact, just to clarify that fact, to make it so obvious even the most OBLIVIOUS could see it, they wrote a SPECIFIC AMENDMENT for it. Can you guess which one? (this is a 5pt question, and if you miss it, you can't get into double jeapordy)

{{YAWN}} I told you, unlike some here, I've actually read the dang thing. That would be the 9th Amendment -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How clever of them to add this meaningless catchall. So... what rights are not enumerated? The right to ingest whatever drugs I see fit? The right to marry whomever or as many partners as I wish? To have sex with any consenting partner I wish, paid or otherwise? The right to build whatever I choose wherever I choose?

Quote by: Osborn The "B" side of the equation is the FACT that without conscent of the people, the government has no authority. So I ask you Sonart.... in order, what methods can the people "change their conscent"? List their choices for doing so please.

Well I daresay the fact that you 'disagree' doesn't change much. The American people have demonstrated their willingness to obey the laws of the land as they now exist, and no one's petitioned the government to change the standing precedent of the Supreme Court.

So kindly explain, Osborn... where is the lack of consent of the people???? Your personal disagreement??? Sorry, but Ron Paul's sentiments aside, this is still a representative democracy defined by a Constitution. If there's a lack of consent to the current law of the land, y'all have a perfectly peaceful, legal recourse to changing it. It's just that apparently no one has chosen to do so.

Beyond that, you can leave the country or start the revolution... you're call.

Quote by: Milton Bradley The problem is that the sides are so completely divided now that I can actually imagine the extreme Left, and the extreme Right firing on one another. The hatred is palpable.

I assume you're speaking for yourself.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There were several soldiers who brought back BAR's, Thompsons, Garands, etc.

Are they legal now?

My dad, a WWII veteran, owned a 30.06 hunting rifle, a 30.30 Winchester, an M1 Carbine, a 12 gauge and 10 gauge shotgun, a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a .22 semi-automatic pistol. He had a Thompson submachine gun before I was born, but had to give that up.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I pointed out how the development of an armed revolt wouldn't suprise me, nor would I necessarily decline participation.

Well it would surprise the hell outta me and I think such a possibility exists only in a very few fevered minds.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is nothing available to the military that average people can't match, except explosives

And armor... and artillery.... and air support.... and training.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Exactly, and there are many ex-military out there just like me, and more trained than I, who would refuse to committ such madness, and join the rebellion.

Nah, not that many, I'm afraid. The vast majority would defend the U.S. government.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That many are MORE corrupt. Point?

More like ours is "is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill.


.

[Milton Bradley]

I won't bother addressing all of that rubbish about American culture because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the Second Amendment.

Quote by: Sonart More like ours is "is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill.

So, if you agree with that, why would you choose to devolve into a less favorable form of government than we now have?


The concepts you're advocating are the very concepts that opinion ridicules.


Now, if you had a better idea...

Quote by: Sonart I assume you're speaking for yourself.

You assume a Helluva lot, pardner.

[shawmutt]

I stand behind what I implied, and if you actually get off your can and do some looking, you can find that out for yourself. There were several soldiers who brought back BAR's, Thompsons, Garands, etc.

You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. I'm somewhat of a WW2 buff, and have not read anything remotely implying what you stated.

Did some soldiers keep their service arms? Sure. However, your claim that "the US Military used to allow soldiers returning from WWII to keep their service arms", and your implication by that statement, is as far as I have researched false.

I'm serious when I stated that if you have the documentation to back that up I'd be interested in learning about it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: I've shown where, based on data, the United States is the most gun murderous wealthy nation on earth and, depending on which criteria you go by, the 8th to 24th most murderous, gun addled nation on earth, period.

Your crazy....

In a land where you have the freedom to fail and to succeed, and to operate in life as you see fit, there will be more "monumental failures" as much as more "monumental successes" compared to a "nation or state" that attempts to dictate every aspect of a persons life.

In a land where risk to fail or succeed is valued over security, is it any wonder there are higher death rates, higher suicide rates, higher death rates for bad eating habits, or detrimental habits such as smoking, extreme sports, etc?

NO, its common sense. Not all people value life equally, and many live life to enjoy it, not simply to be "one of the Joneses."

You are making a strawman argument. INDIVIDUAL CHOICE is the cause, and some people making bad choices are the effects.

-Guns aren't the cause.
-Fatty foods aren't the cause.
-Lack of education on how to be healthy isn't the cause.

Those are all products of people owning their own bodies, deciding how THEY want to live and die, and doing things as THEY see fit.

Yes, there are exceptions, but the bulk of the people live as they do because that is what they choose to the extent they can affect their life.

This affects national averages, statistics, and the fact is, this isn't a nation based on "achieving the highest statistics" regarding anything other than LIBERTY.

Sonart said: Of course, your response will be to blame the media, not guns. But the media only reflects the culture that surrounds it, and the culture that surrounds all Americans is one that revels in gun violence.

Nonsense, I blame idiots who can't understand cause and effect, and instead decide based on "emotion" and "subjective morals" what are better everyone, when it isn't their place, isn't their right and isn't their business.

Welcome to that club.

Sonart said: As several have pointed out, no... not against the modern U.S. military. As to your point about soldiers not firing on American citizens -- if those citizens are ARMED, as you advocate, then you bet our troops will fire. Again, the Civil War proved that.

The Civil War didn't prove anything of the sort. The idea of individual liberty is what gave backbone to those who fought the oppressors in the South, just like if a revolt were to happen today, the backbone would come from individual liberty, not supporting a police state.

Sonart said: Maybe, but not nearly to the point of armed rebellion... not anywhere near. But you and your pals go right ahead. We'll be right behind you.

Where is that line Sonart? You have no idea, nor do I, but time will tell, won't it. When that time comes, there will be two types of people.... those who are prepared, and those who aren't.

I am proud to say I am one who is prepared.

Sonart said: These are the reasons the gun lobby hasn't challenged laws before the Supreme Court??? This is just plain silly, laws are challenged on constitutional questions every year, without violence.

How many that directl influence the right to property, self-defense and self-ownership?

Sonart said: Please share with me when a recent Supreme Court ruling has resulted in bloodshed?

O.J. Simpson trial, and that wasn't even a trial that affected ANYONES lives except OJ, the victims and famillies.

Why does "recent" or "Supreme Court" have anything to do with anything? Are you saying because it hasn't happened RECENTLY, it can't happen?

Sonart said: Or is it just the naturally violent nature of gun owners that you somehow don't trust?

I think you would know better than to utter such nonsense in relation to my position, even though you yourself are a gun owner and a hypocrite.

Sonart said: Once again, just because it's not ILLEGAL for you to own a gun, doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to. It's not illegal to own a dog, either. That doesn't mean I have a Constitutional Right to own one.

So you don't understand what a "right" is, basicly? Why not just admit that you don't understand?

Sonart said: I told you, unlike some here, I've actually read the dang thing.

You wouldn't have to keep saying it, if you showed evidence of that fact when you typed.

You sound like Hillary trying to explain why she doesn't understand everyone thinks she is a liar, even though she keeps saying she isn't.

Sonart said: Beyond that, you can leave the country or start the revolution... you're call.

Thanks for stating the obvious, but your permission was not asked for or necessary.

Sonart said: Are they legal now? My dad, a WWII veteran, owned a 30.06 hunting rifle, a 30.30 Winchester, an M1 Carbine, a 12 gauge and 10 gauge shotgun, a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a .22 semi-automatic pistol. He had a Thompson submachine gun before I was born, but had to give that up.

Depends on the state you live in, and to what extent your representatives have violated your rights regarding the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Sonart said: Well it would surprise the hell outta me and I think such a possibility exists only in a very few fevered minds.

Well, we all have a right to our opinions, don't we.

Sonart said: And armor... and artillery.... and air support.... and training.

Try reading a little, you don't know what you're talking about.

How many civillian aircraft are there?
How hard is it to make a lauched projectile weapon?
How hard is it to train with experienced people?

As I said, all of those are ireelevant, except the training.

Guerillas have advantage in a revolt, regardless of who the military is.

You can deny this, but you can't prove me wrong, and your tactical sense seems about as educated as a 5th grader who watches GI JOE.

Have you noticed what is happening in Iraq Sonart?
Did you notice what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan Sonart?

You really have no clue.

Sonart said: Nah, not that many, I'm afraid. The vast majority would defend the U.S. government.

Well, as an ex-military man, who knows several others in my area who are on my side of the argument, I disagree with your "opinion".