Alphecca

Armed gulf coast citizens coming together to keep their community safe from roving bands of armed thugs at a time when the government was unable to provide for their security.

There's your "well-regulated militia", Mr. Miller.

Sorry if that concept scares you, but that's not my problem. And don't you dare try to make it mine.

Oh good lord! Not this schmuck again! Does Miller really think his credentials as a writer somehow magically transform his vile, lying pablum into fact?

The country IS defended by a "well-regulated militia" today, bonehead! The armed citizen is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government! Read Federalist 28 sometime!

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

That is what the Founders intended, and that is what you and your cowardly ilk have been trying to destroy for decades!

Interesting that on this go round he concedes that "militias" have been successful on a "couple" of occassions. The first time around he claimed they never worked. Again, he needs a little history lesson about a little conflict called the Revolutionary War.

WOW! What a Monty Python response (Run away, Run away)! Bonehead again, can't back up his opinion with any sources or historical fact. "This is my ignorant opinion. Don't confuse me with facts!"

I'm going to respond, but I need a really good way to say "ignorant opinion" in a bitingly polite way. Recommendations gladly accepted!
Dennis

Man, these people just LOVE lying about the Swiss.

Some say the ammo is sealed in containers at your house, now this guy says it's stored at an army base.

Apparently, you do get a sealed allotment from the government, but that rifle and those cartridges are not the full extent of a Swiss individuals gun rights.

Gun shops are everwhere. The Swiss had national shall-issue handgun carrying until 1999. Riflesport is a major pasttime there, which would be hard if the only ammo you could buy are in sealed cans from the government.

The lies never stop.

Heck, he's right. We don't have a well-regulated militia in the sense of the Second Amendment.

We're not training military maneuvers and marksmanship nearly enough to be "well-regulated".

(Though everything I've heard from people in the services indicates that civilian gun ownership is markedly correlated to ability to shoot in Basic Training... thus undermining his argument further. And we're (mostly) all members of the militia alrady anyway, without conscription.)

Nevermind that that clause does not establish a requirement or a limit on the right the latter half of the sentence describes, of course.

So, was Lexington a failure? Concord, anyone?

The guys who defended Breed's Hill and Bunker Hill were militia, weren't they? Even though they retreated the hill, it was a defeat in numeric terms for the Redcoats.

Miller is a tory. He hates america. he hates himself. He's a puppet for the left. He has a right to his opinion. Us gun owners know better. Gov't has to be watched forever. We are not going to kiss the "king's ass" ever again. The tree of liberty needs water again with his kind.

Willful Ignorance...what do they teach in school these days? "there is no Bill of Rights?" Might as well say there is no Congress or no President. DUMB OR JUST DELIBERATELY MALICIOUS.

Just fired off a LTE in response. I expect the editor will be in touch on Monday. I'm getting tired of educating these purposely ignorant illuminati. This twit never did address any points in my prior rebuttal. What a shit!

You can't educate him. He knows he is a liar. No amount of response to him will stop him from lying. Therefore it would behoove us to put the lie to his words in front of the people that read his tripe and educate them, if we can reach his audience. Not all of them are dishonest, just woefully weak and ignorant.

test

Just in case anyone notices the last name, yes, I am Ron's brother.

There are many things he and I disagree on but I am surprised at the vehemence of the responses here on an issue where he and I (and I would have thought that most of you) do agree on. And that is on the issue that you do have a right to own a gun whether the Constitution or any other government document is used to rationalize that "right".

That aside, I think it is interesting that when I saw the first mention of his letter to the paper that the part that was shown on this website did not include his opening statement:

"I SHOULD SAY at the outset that I believe that I have a right to own a gun and I do own one. But I don't think that the Second Amendment unequivocally guarantees me that right. Let me explain."

It is obvious that he is sympathetic to gun ownership but feels that a defense based on the 2nd amendment is not the answer. In effect all he is saying is that at some point we will be faced with a court that will look at this in the strictest use of the language and will make an attempt to remove or severely restrict ownership.

My son, Ron's nephew, works for a target range and is going to school to be a gunsmith. He has our house so loaded with guns that if a revolution occurs or zombies take over a la Dawn of the Dead they had better not come knocking at our door.

Ron has never expressed any qualms about being in our house despite the mini-armory in our basement and been very supportive of his nephew's decision to pursue his trade.

Rather than taking a part of his letter to publish here and then ignoring his opening paragraph one should look at him as an ally who is bringing attention to a coming battle and be prepared for alternate maneuvers and strategies.

The way that the responses here have been couched that rather than thoughtful consideration of his point and acknowledging him as a fellow gun owner many have responded with derision and ad hominem attacks dismissing him as a mere writer, and a sci-fi one at that(?).

What on earth does that even mean? Do you want to perpetuate the notion that gun owners are tobacco chewing sub-literate rednecks?

This appears more about a person who apparently is breaking ranks with those in lockstep who ironically are believing that with today's fluctuating and activist courts that their rights are somehow safe based on a single line of text in the Constitution.

Again, read the first paragraph at least as carefully as you pore over the 2nd amendment and try to refrain from a feeding frenzy over a sympathetic person that is only raising the point that if you really don't want your guns pried from your cold dead fingers (sorry I had to get that in somewhere) you had better be prepared to be as flexible in their defense as a well-regulated militia would be and that would first require you knowing who your enemies really are.

Tom

The problem is that the 2A is the last hope/protection for most. We even have anti gun types like Harvard Law Prof Laurence Tribe agree that 2A does apply to individuals. Simply put, there is no other protection to fall back on to defeat legislation that eventually seeks to outlaw guns.

Now, insofar as your brother states that he doesn't need permission from the 2A to own a gun, he is right--it is a God given right. Yet this right was thought so crucial, the founding fathers thought they should enumerate this right.

People get riled up b/c this is a war of attrition, and giving an inch is not a one shot deal. Give an inch, they'll take a mile.

We all know who are enemies are on this issue. Flexibility was agreeing to NICS. It is not agreeing to waiting periods, one-gun-a-month, banning "scary" looking guns, and registration. I don't know your brother, but it appears he needs a lesson in reality.

Re Tom's defense of Ron:
I took Ron's opening statement in the same way I take Chuck Schumer's statement that he "respects the 2nd Amendment but..." Ron went on to declare that the 2nd Amendemnt does not mean what the Constitutional authors said it means. It is obvious that he either has not read the history of the Bill Of Rights (which he says doesn't exist) or he is being purposely obtuse. His own argument damns him.

Tom:
"It is obvious that he is sympathetic to gun ownership but feels that a defense based on the 2nd amendment is not the answer. "

The problem is as it was shown - he doesn't know Constitutional law from a hole in the ground.

So, as a result, he *CAN'T* really make a good argument for this. Instead of educating himself, he wrote on his prejudices. And has been called on it.

The problem isn't with the response (We see this ALL THE TIME), but with his ill-informed spiel (which the press was happy to publish).

Obviously, you haven't seen the latest line of attack by those who want to outlaw guns. Which is to define which guns are "acceptable". "Sporting use" for example. Nevermind the entire intent and scholarship about the 2nd (which sadly, was Ron's guiding principle (Nevermind, that is)).

Nice site http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/b/baila19/