Another can of,,No not worms.

[BLG]

So the gun banners/anti-gunners, what ever you wanna call'em. All say the 2nd amendment only pertains to "State Militias", not individual rights. Suppose this:
The Great State of ------------ (---covers most I think-- except maybe the late great state along the pacific ocean) has decided to pass legislation to form its own state militia (for the common good and security of said state) not regulated by the Federal Government,i.e. National Guards and Reserves, and all persons aged 18 and above and otherwise legally able to purchase long arms and ammunition shall immediately be considered as being members of the aforementioned ---------- State Militia,with all the rights of purchasing backup or replacement arms,FMJ practice ammunition and hollow point ammunition for defense of the state(thru the CMP at reduced rates due to troop status) and up to and including other equipment costs as deemed necessary by the individual troop(s).No proof otherwise needed excepting a certified certificate of live birth within the state. Stay wi me on this. Its all cause and effect 1st.
1 - Have the state legislature really stand up for individual states rights.(Many have recently).
2- Contact local representatives in state legislatures and get them to put up and pass a bill enabling the recall vote on Federal legislators.(Some states have this already,most, sadly don't.Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.)
3- Flood your Federal Congressmen and Senators offices with the recall reminder.
4- Go after the State legislature to pass the "Militia Law".

Then Viola, all are members of said State Militia and are without a doubt within the workings of the 2nd amendment any way you care to interpret it. Probably gonna regret this

BLG

[justanothergunnut]

I believe the argument that the 2nd only applies to state sponsored militias is weak at best. It clearly addresses the right of the people and NEVER mentions state sponsorship or endorsement as a prerequisite. I think it would be a mistake to attempt to operate within the parameters set up by our enemies. Why would we operate under their terms? The 2nd is clear..

[BLG]

Indeed, I too believe it is clear, "Shall not be infringed", cannot be interpreted any other way. I put forth the scenario that it could be possible, if done correctly (Constitutional Lawyers I'm sure could find a way to use it against Patriots) to maintain ones rights under the Constitution if push came to shove out of the supreme courts, as the deck is continually being stacked against us by the "O" crowd in this arena. An "out" if you will.