great question but that is supremely apples and oranges. i don't find any real need (neither did the court)for partial birth abortions since there are alternatives. what is the need for the brady bill guns that people want to protect? is there even a need for the alternatives?

umm, that's called applying law to the facts. why could the court not find that there is no longer a risk to the security of the free state to necessitate such militias? these militias are playing chicken little. i guess that is their right.

Because the constitution does not give the court that option. If you are so insistent (and I commend you for it - honestly) that we look at the full text of the amendment, you should pay careful attention to the structure and grammar of that text:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."

It does not say "If a well-regulated militia is necessary. . ." or "As long as a well-regulated militia is necessary . . ." or "To the extent that a well-regulated militia is necessary . . ."

It says that a well-regulated militia IS necessary. It takes a constitutional amendment to determine that a well-regulated militia is not necessary. The court simply cannot (without being disingenuous) determine that it is not so.

Ron, congratulations. It takes a special kind of guy to make me start sounding like an NRA apologist (which I adamantly am not!).

dad, i know. but reality tells me that a militia is no longer necessary. it's like one of those "wacky" laws like 'you can't carry a duck in your car on sundays'. sure, at the time it was probably great (and the legislative history would support that) but that is no longer the case.

i know i know "amend it". what i want to do is start making legislation to challenge it (with certain types of guns) and to make it more rigorous to own guns. why can't we make laws with incredibly punitive laws for possession without a license?

Because unlike the right to privacy, a well protected milita being necessary is actually written in the Constitution.

I know that is an annoyance to you, but it is actually an important fact that you should take note of.

Post deleted by Ron Mexico

Ouch!!

Wow. Nice talking to you too Ron.

how long are you going to needle me, straw?

How long are you going to label me as a xenophobic vigilante.

I have not commented on the policy connotations to these militias. Whether they are a good idea or not, whether they are good policy or not, is irrelevant to how they bear on a Constitutional issue.

You are either unwilling, or incapable, to accept that, which makes a Con Law debate with you extremely difficult.

As my fellow mod, DQ, would say, please play nice children.

straw, i get the con law debate. i brought the con law up in the first place because i want people to understand the basis of the right that they claim. my real intention is changing policy and perception.

please accept my public apology for being a jerk. i'm in a bad mood and it was not fair to take it out on you. i wasn't thinking clearly. and i especially don't want to offend people who i really like and respect.

i know. i already PM'd snowqueen to help me clean up the mess that i started. my apologies to everyone.

Everyone relax. Ron pm'ed me very shortly after his message. Just blew off some steam.

No one is upset or angry.