[lugsoul]

Is it your contention that if a group of citizens overthrew the government in an armed uprising - assuming, of course, that the arms that these citizens bear according to their second amendment rights are sufficient to trump the rather considerable arms possessed by the gov't - because that group of armed citizens disagreed with an interpretation of the constitutionality of a law made by any or all of the branches of the government in accordance with constitutional procedures - THAT would be a "constitutional" manner of properly interpreting that law? No sir, that would be a coup d'etat. If you want to exercise the power of citizenship, vote the bastards that passed the law out of office and elect some bastards who will uphold the constitution. But don't tell me that I can live with your interpretation at the business end of your gun barrel. That would be a rather Maoist approach to things, dontcha think?

[Lumberjack]

Try reading some Jefferson and get back to me when you actually understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be a tool for arming all available men to serve in the militia and also to be a check on a government that thought it could abuse its citizens. The FF's were quite clear on this.

"My particular interpretation"? So I just imagined that I had a right to free speech?

Like I said, get out of the law books and read some of the words of the Founding Fathers in regards to the 2nd Amendment. And I appologize in advance if they scare you as much as my words have.