I was surprised last week when a radio DJ wished Seasons Greetings over the air by saying Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukah, Merry Christmas and then the shocker he said and Happy New Year to our Muslim friends who call December 18 New's Day and he went on to explain that it is 1400th or so year since Mohammed's trip to Mecca.

You have scoffed Mike ,my friend at the idea of driving on a particular side of the street as required by law and custom. What type of law abiding do you consider it for someone who cannot fathom the simplest of customs like that and wishes to challenge it.

The point is Mike proprietors and people don't want guns laying around their bars and places of public accomodation now or in 1800. This is just common sense. So why are gun nuts trying to screw up things and go against plain common sense. Carlton comments on my way or abiltiy of putting things. I suggest that I am just using palin old common sense. I think we need much more of it and we can solve a lot of problems caused by ideological labeling and name calling.

Mike you have previously in effect laughed with scorn on this site about the idea of driving on a particular side of the street as is required by law. Carlton I appreciate your comments about my ability to frame things but suggest it is not due in any ability but due to straight thinking. Someone (a preacher I think) once told me that "you always say the right thing", I don't intentionaly try to do so but I do believe that right thinking breeds correct writing and expression. Again Mike has many times expressed his antipaty to obeying law as he has done above.. Merry Christmas to you all.

I think this is a thought provoking but ultimately confusing and incomplete or not fully developed quote, therefore it does not deserve our attention.

My wife always saves her gasoline receipts because she says she can go back in case they sell her bad gas. She considers that a bit of insurance. She has never had bad gas in 30 years. Some say you should always turn your boots upside down and shake them out in the morning to be sure that there are no snakes in them. Some people say they have done this all of there lives but have never had a snake in their boot. But one cannot be to careful, ya know! The arguments of the gun rabid guys is much the same , I think. I personally own six hadnd guns, a shot guy, 30/30 and a 22. If saving your gas receipts, shaking out your boots and having some guns lying around makes you feel good go for it, but heaven sakes don't fool yourself with self delusion.

Dornan was generally believed to be insane. There has and neve has been a move to take away citizens guns. There was a move to control assault weapons used primarily by inner city thugs in drive by shootings. All this crap about taking away guns from law abiding citizens is just a trumped up charge for politicians (who otherwise have no clue about what issues are truly important to the American people) to try to garner a few votes from the unthinking and unread, and the unaware.

Again Mike you are not nor do you espouse abiding by the law therefore you should not have guns in accordance with the quote. Do you sneer at traffic laws or do you not?

You are not noble Mike and you are not law-abiding. You sneer at traffic laws. Self proclaimed militias just like your self proclaimed "We The People". You are not We The People, Mike. By claiming that you are you just show yourself to be a meglomaniac in the same order of being as Adolf Hitler, When an individual tries to wrap himself in a cloak that does not belong to him but to millions he is a megolomaniac. You are entitled to your opinions no matter how in elegant, untinking, and ignorant they may be but you are not allowed to say that your opinion is the "We The People" opinion. Again you have no right to a gun because you have stated your hatred and distaste for being a "law-abiding citizen". You run from the law rather than ebrace it as law abiding citizens are supposed to do. I recommend that we really impose that standard, register all guns and when a person gets a speeding violation or any other law breaking we take his or her guns away. Living by the law abiding rule would probably eliminate the guns in the hands of your so called independent militias, some of which are just organized hate groups.

Cal how about the Western States who were the first ones to restrict the reckless in the wild wild west. The west is where towns and villages took action against gun slingers. The guns were made in the east but the west took the action to control them. Now in Arizona an open carry state, proprietors are having to put up signs that say "No guns allowed". What is going to stop a 90 pound weakling from having his gun taken away by a 250 lb bar drunk. I don't think having drunks all carrying guns is a good idea. The quote is still basically correct but I suggest the gallows is the only answer, not prison for the cowards and dishonorable. I know that in friendly local bar say like Cheers if a guy comes in and lays his 45 on the bar or has it handy by his side the place just is not going to be the same anymore. Why do folk want to scary people like this. Guns should be used, handled and shown discreetly.

Key word is law abiding. Those who keep arms and claim that they are for use against the police or government have law avoidance or overthrow of law in their hearts and minds. Those like Mike who utter an unthinking Wow! once a day should probalby not be let near a gun. As for good people I agree they should have their guns, I know I have mine. Nothing Mike says indicates to me that he is a good or law abiding person. He states his abhorrence to even the simplest of traffic laws. The heavey weapons in Lexington and Concord were in the armories and the British were marching to take them. Fortunately the farmers and villagers had enough private weapons to fire on the Brits as they retreated. But again the primary weapons of US citizens are in the armories.

There are two militias, the organized and the unorganized. The organized is the National Guard. The unorganized is all men between the ages of 19 and 45 who are not in the active National Guard. Both of these militias come under the Commander In Chief of the United States of America.You are not for a united miltia but for a disunited militia and ultimately for the will and power of Mike. The idea of uniting with your fellows is anathema to every thing you say and stand for. You are of the misanthropic class that detests uniting to accomplish anything. Why do you write words such as "it is time for the armed citizens of this country to unite"? There is no more of a united armed citizenry than the military of the USA. They and for that matter us are known for our command structure and loyalty to the Commnader In Chief whom ever he is. You are one of the few pigs in the ointiment I know of.

Carlton read The Constitution. The militia reports to the Commander In Chief. The only way that the miltia can attack the government is under the order of the Commander In Chief. There is no provision as Mike states for the militia to unite and organize itself. Mike is an obvious flake, do go down his road of ignorance and degradation.

If you really and sincerely believe what you are saying Mike, "that it is time for the armed citizenry to unite in an orgaizized militia to eliminate this oppression" what the hell are you doing about it. Do have an address or telephone number where people can contact you. Exactly how is this united organization suppose to unite and organized when you act and talk like such a weasel. Again you are a coward and nothing but a big mouth blowhard. How can you for a minute talk of nobility.

No government ever formed said that the peopel may attack us and this government and this constitution anytime they wish to. If that is what you believe Mike what are you doing on this silly site. Why are you not somewhere at least firing sniper shots at any and all vestiges of this system you so much abhor. You are the biggest mouth and biggest coward I have ever not had the pleasure of meeting.

Judity aluminum ain't tough enough. PS I will take the most corrupt police officer over the likes of Mike anytime, anyday when it comes to intelligence, common sense and any other thing of virtue.

Mike why are you not in Copenhagen. I understand that is where all of the We The People are trying to establish a "people's assembly". You are alwasys mouthing off about we the people why are you not over there with them.

Arms are for the defense of the State and thus they are kept in the State Armory. The people hire officers, and police to defend them internally and soldiers to defend themselves externally. Those who take it upon themselves for whatever reason to fire upon the police or their own soldiers are committing murder! The idea that the framers told the people to fire upon them or the political office holders under The Constitution anytime in which they disagreed with them rather than using the political processes, checks and balances, contained within the document is preposterous. If we can settle everything with guns them we do not need The Constitution. In effect the purpose of The Constituion is to negate the use of guns and force, To promote the use of guns against The Constitution is Treason.

In many quarters in this our country there is always opposition to law enforcement. I was told this weekend that a Customs Officer in South Texas was told that his children were not welcomed in a local school because of his government job. Go figure.

The Judge errs in my opinion quite clearly in his phrase "of the government it was meant to hold in check". Here he espouses the view tha what the Amendment really means is "that the citizens shall be free to keep and maintain arms in order that they may attack and destroy This Constitution whenever they see fit". If an armed citizenry was intended to hold the government and The Constitution in check what was or is the purpose of all of the written stuff, the checks and balances, the Supreme Court, the debates about it etcetera. Why do we not just all take to the streets with arms. This idea that the framers in effect said that if you do not like what we are doing or what your government under This Constitution is doing you may shoot us or them at will is PREPOSTEROUS.

PS: In most villages and towns in history have kept the guns locked up in the Armory until needed. The citizenry did not need to play with them all of the time in order to be able to use them during an emergency. Come on guys start thinking outside of the box and quit being knee jerkers. You are not free nor living in liberty until you can think outside of the box and for yourselves.

Archer I was only saying what the quote says. It says guns are for the lawful defense of self or the state. Get a life my friend or take some reading lessons. You to Ken. If guns are for both of those purposes then what does the self do when it feels attacked by the state fire upon self or fire upon state. Further when other selves like you Archer and Ken are attacking the state am I compelled by this quote to shoot at you since the quote says that I am to defend the state and you are in rebellion against it. Go read you guys go read.

We are not in anyway under natural law in this country. We are under Constitutional Law and Common law. Get with it! The Concise Encylopedaia of American Historry says that there was no bankruptcy law in Jefferson's time. If bankruptucy law existed under common law why or why did the founders see fit to empower Congress to set up one.

Sounds good but I personally know of individuals family and friends and indirectly know of millions who were perfectly good marksman, cannoneers and bayoneters who became highly quliefied milita men, soldiers, sailors and airmen whithout ever previously owning or using a gun, cannon or bayonet. The thesis of the purpose may be entirely flawed. He seems to say that we all need to play with guns in order to ever be serious about using them. I suggest that is not true. Most civilian citizen soldiers never had a gun before or after the wars but none the less were excellent warriors..That is not to say that Americans should not have a right to bear arms but I repeat it is not necessary to bear arms in private life in order to use professional in the service of the state miltia. History has shown that the leaders of the miltia are very good at training us.

While obviously correct we must realize that that it sometimes takes years to determine if an act or law is unconstitutional. For an individual to make such a judgement and then disobey the law a law that hee questions is an unconstitutional act in and of itself since only the Surpreme Court can legally make such a judgement. See ya in court!