Lots of 2nd amendment talk lately, since the DC Court of Appeals struck down the DC gun ban law as unconstitutional. The big question, does the 2nd Amendment refer only to militias having the right to bear arms, or to individuals. I submit that those are the same thing, and were meant to be by the people who wrote the words in the first place. What is the militia? It is a fighting force formed by individual civilians, not by professional soldiers. A militia is not the army. Is the National Guard a militia? Sure. But if the U.S. was invaded today, you can damn sure bet that there will be groups of civilians all over the place forming militias for mutual defense of their towns, neighborhoods, etc. Same in the case of an oppressive government rising up. By that, I mean real oppression, not George Bush is taking away our civil liberties even though I can't really point to anything specific that has been taken away from me sort of oppression. Anyway, these individuals have the right to have guns on hand in case such low probability events happen. Or should they just be forced to bow down to an invading force because the Army has all the guns and all the Army people within 100 miles were killed when their bases were bombed in the initial surprise attack.

Farfetched, yeah, but still feasible, and certainly much more likely when the Amendment was written. At the same time, I have complete and utter derision for anyone who thinks I should not be able to properly defend myself when attacked.


Wow! I was just reading the online comments on the Washington Post website regarding an editorial supporting gun bans and decrying the ruling. Out of 5 pages of comments, only like two individuals agreed with the editorial. So like 95% of commenters agreed with the court decision that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of INDIVIDUALS to bare arms. Very cool, I wonder if this is a sign of a groundswell in favor of the right to carry.