>
Militia has two meanings: soldiers who are also civilians and a reserve military force. ( Also the lastest meaning deriving form the labeling of the paramilitary outlaws). Key word CIVILIANS.
>

So you would identify yourself with the likes of the militia movement? A well regulated militia in the 18th century was needed for obvious reasons. Not much of a formal army back then. Rag tag is one of the favorite descriptions. Also, they were dedicated to defending the republic, not toppling it over...


>
Security of a free state: a state free from illegal federal interference or oppression. Hence freedom from the federal goverment becoming to powerful and not answering to the majority of people.
<

Oh yes, there is a lot of federal imperialism going on. What, I think I hear the gestapo at the door...< vbg >...


Seriously Michael, you do - as well as many of your NRA brethern - assuming you are in fact a member - take the constitution - out of context I might add - and read it in a vaccuum and further, use it as a DEFENSE of your rights.

Instead, I invite you to look at the issue from the other side. Instead, read the constitution from the perspective of how it confers upon me the RIGHT to do something. Specifcally, where do you infer from the consitution that it is incompatible for people to have to register and bear arms.

FWIW, I have no issues whatsoever with law abiding people. Those how go to target ranges, hunt. Heck, when I am in Dallas - which is a fairly regular occurence - I love to go to the DFW range by Love Field.

What is uncontionalble to me is the NRA who continually use the constitution - out of context - to support their agenda. I have never seen a more paranoid group of people.

If you knew how the upper echelon of that organization pads its pockets - lives high on the hog - on the supposition that they are defending you from the evil empire.

The interpretation you have is one from propoganda...

< JVP >