Hmm, reminds me of many of our discussions from years ago. You always seem to forget about the initial portion of this statement: "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary...". I fully support arming arming the militia, assuming we aren't talking about private citizens wanting to play at being soldiers, but rather are a WELL REGULATED miliita. 16 weapons in a single vehicle is heavily armed in any case. I don't see your support for either this guy, or your logical reasoning behind ignoring half of your blessed amendment.

I have several points to make. Each stands on its own and any single point is sufficient to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

1. Federal law recognizes all able bodied males aged 17-45 as members of the unorganized militia. So even if the 2nd amendment were restricted to militias, most men are covered. And certainly rifles and handguns are suitable weapons for use in a militia. (BTW, the law defining the militia this way was passed the year after the 2nd Amendment was ratified!)

2. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any rights. Our natural rights are inalienable and granted by our Creator. All the Bill of Rights does is recognize our rights and state that our government "shall not infringe" on them and (in this case) gives a reason why (because an armed populace is good for freedom). The extent of our right to bear arms is not defined by the Second Amendment.

As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876), the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." (a href="http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org">source)

3. The Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. This has been upheld in many court decisions (most recently in Emerson v. US). This was also the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
(More information here)

I fully support arming arming the militia, assuming we aren't talking about private citizens wanting to play at being soldiers, but rather are a WELL REGULATED miliita.

The unorganized militia of the United States, as defined by federal law, is composed of "private citizens". I don't know what you mean by "playing soldier". Is it inappropriate for members of the unorganized militia to drill together? That's precisely what happened during the American Revolution. Communities, churches, etc., "played soldier" in view of the impending threat from England. These militia and minutemen that you deride as "play soldiers" were the ones who stood on the Lexington Green in defiance of the British and fired the "shot heard 'round the world." God bless those play soldiers! And praise God people like you weren't there to hold them in such contempt!

16 weapons in a single vehicle is heavily armed in any case.

Well, that partially depends on the details of the weapons. Does my single-shot 12 gauge, my single-shot bolt action 22, and my .410 shotgun that hold a grand total of 3 shells (which I can never load correctly) count towards my arsenal? Hardly. How about the laughable .32 handgun in my pocket right now?

But in any event, the 2nd Amendment does not recognize "the right of the people to keep and bear a few arms". If I can have 3 guns, I can have 30 or 300. I know of no laws that restrict the number of guns one person can own or transport.

don't see your support for either this guy,

I think I said that this guy was probably up to no good. But being "heavily armed" (which is such a subjective term) is not justification to arrest someone.

or your logical reasoning behind ignoring half of your blessed amendment.

Rather, I do not ignore the second half of it as you do.

Last night, I posted a longer comment building on one point in "We the Sheeple" (part 1) that I think is related to your second paragraph in your third point in response to Patrick's comment on your "Armed Man Arrested by Secret Service" post. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that comment.

By the way, I'd like to make clear that I am not attempting to argue that citizens should be kept unarmed; I'm just attempting to tease out some of the relationships between your thoughts on American institutions vis-a-vis American individuals and gun ownership rights.

Finally, I apologize for my writing style. While I value clarity and flow in writing, I value precision of meaning even more highly, and find that often those values are at odds when I attempt to express my reasoning.

I see again that we're covering old ground, so I'll make my stock response and wait for your standard one again and we'll agree to disagree and continue on with our lives.

I can't see that you'd believe that times and conditions surrounding weaponry today and weaponry at the time of the American Revolution are not so fundamentally different as to be incontrovertably immaterial as illustration to each other. For a solid militia today to stand against a sitting government, individuals would need to be armed with armor piercing weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, and other such things are are both inappropriate and dangerous to give to private citizens.

Especially in today's world, where we seem to have no true fear of tyrrany in the US, and should not due to our assuredness that governmental controls exist and work to protect us as individuals from the government and each other, having a revolt against our elected government is a laughable reason to bring up when talking about the right to bear arms.

And, just for the record, the American Revolution was not unanimously supported. There were plenty who derided and opposed the revolution as it happened. They were called "Loyalists" and, incidentally, made up somewhere between 30 and 50% of the populous. After the war many of them left the US for Canada or the UK, and many simply continued to live here. Thank God and the Constitution for their right to believe that the US shouldn't have been formed and vocalize it without fear of lynching. Thank God and the Constitution for my right to say that you shouldn't be so paranoid as to think that you need to carry a handgun, and your right to say that I'm wrong, without fear of police retribution.

Now, if you fire that weapon, and someone ends up injured or dead, I hope only that you hit your target, and that you can live with yourself after you have pulled that trigger. I know that I could not.

By the way, when I post here, can I insert HTML into the screen? If so, do I have to use escape characters for angled brackets?

Patrick,

Did you have a chance to read my post in response to Robert's "We the Sheeple" (Part 1, in August)? (BTW, that is my post above -- I forgot to put my name in.) I made some of the same points in that, and am still interested in hearing Robert's thoughts these responses.

HTML works just fine for me in these posts, using the standard HTML format and regular keyboard angle brackets.

I have been working on a reply about the role of citizen militias in general. Unfortunately my home PC is on its last leg (hard drive is having a lot of trouble) and I've been real busy at work. I will get to this as soon as I can.