[Old Teufel Hunden]

“I can see the headlines now: “Navy Patriot endorses drug dealers having guns.” or “Navy Patriot seeks to protect home invasion thugs.””

I think the reason that headlines like this would even exist is because of the general publics lack of exposure to firearms. I think most of them get the fact that the 2A applies to all of them. What I think a lot of them can’t get past is their fear of firearms. They fear what they do not understand. I think that if more of the general public were exposed to gun safety and training courses and got to fire weapons, then headlines like this would not phase them.

I suppose the general public would really be afraid of my “radical” interpretation of the second amendment. From my interpretation, it means that we as the militia should have access to the same type of firearms that the military has. In other words, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have fully auto M-16’s etc to be properly prepared to perform our duties as part of the militia. How can we be a well regulated militia without the proper arms to keep and bear?

Thanks for listening to my rants... : )

[Navy Patriot]

From my interpretation, it means that we as the militia should have access to the same type of firearms that the military has.

I agree and do not consider that "radical".

[Lurker]

In other words, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have fully auto M-16’s etc to be properly prepared to perform our duties as part of the militia. How can we be a well regulated militia without the proper arms to keep and bear?

You are of course quite correct in your interpretation. Prior to the turn of the century the militia was expected, if called upon, to show up with weapons of the type currently in use in the regular Army.

In 1900 that meant a Krag Jorgenson. In 1945 that meant a Garand or a Browning light MG. In 2007 that would mean an M-16 or a SAW.

There's nothing radical about that belief at all.

L