[Jeff Head]

Hey, Akhil and Vikram ... Molon Labe!

[sailor4321]

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

What is "reasonable" is one thing if there is no individual right to keep and bear military arms. In that situation, which the gun controllers believe, anything at all is reasonable. So you end up with things like Senators banning firearms because they look evil.

What is "reasonable" in the face of a clearly established individual right is something else altogether. It is, as the Emerson Court so correctly pointed out, something that is narrowly tailored, specific to the situation, etc.

To get your mind around it, try imagining there is no amendment protecting your freedom of religion. Now imagine what sorts of reasonable restrictions might be applied to your individual religious practices (all for the betterment of greater society, of course).

[Looking4Truth]

Doesn't matter to me.

FMCDH!!

[Lee'sGhost]

Here's the funny thing to me. The writer talks about it being the right of the militia -- and then goes on to talk about the National Guard. But even if he were right he would not get what he wants, because a militia is not necessarily established and maintained by a government. According to Webster's (and common knowledge) a militia is "a body of citizens organized for military service" plain and simple. I could get a group together in my neighborhood, call it the neighborhood militia, and then be perfectly within my right to own guns -- BY HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! Cleary this is not the outcome the writer is seeking, but even if we played by HIS rules, we would still be able to get what we want. I love it. Why are these aholes such idiots?!

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase:"

F, Exactly so! "Arms" are, have been, and always will be implements of war. Which is why "the people" as INDIVIDUALS must NEVER be barred the ownership of arms. IF as this guy submits, "only militias" may bear arms, then there is NO doubt that those militias WILL take over government itself. Whether that "militia" be federal {Taliban}, or local, they WILL RULE!!! Those who are given that power ALWAYS DO!! Throughtout history, there have been NO EXCEPTIONS!!! The ONLY thing that has prevented this in this country for over two hundred years {The LONGEST and only standing form of government "under constitution"}, is "the right of the PEOPLE {individuals} to keep and bear arms. Peace and love, George.

[marktwain]

The writers make their own case against themselves.

They note that the militia was the people, and the people were the militia.

Then, they simply skip to to the silly conclusion that a right of the people applies only to militia, but not to individuals!

Pure sophistry.