[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The militia was an important institution at the time the Constitution was drafted; it is not today.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the moment the militia appears to be not important. However, that could change over time, as governments, and wars, change over time; so it is important to not castrate the ability of the American populace to form a militia should one be needed in the future. If a militia is ever needed again, not having one, or not having the ability and means to form one, would be far worse than any problems that occur today as a result of the populace having access to weaponry.

Wacki stated something to the effect that historically speaking, you are 45 (was it 45?) times more likely to be killed by a government than by a criminal. An armed populace is VITAL to future security, given the history of the world, the history of governmental oppressions, and the history of warfare and aggression. That we are lucky enough, at the moment, to live in relative security in a relatively secure place, does not mean that that is the normal state of affairs for humans. Things change over time, governments change, balances of power change. If the need for a militia should arise again (did I say "if"? let's change that to "when", which is actually more likely), it will be too late if the populace has been already disarmed.

Apologies for all the italics but they seemed appropriate as I was writing it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

You do seem to have a great deal of faith in government at present. What about government of posterity, and in the future, though? Do not histories of governments (and wars) throughout the ages show that a militia will probably be needed in the future? (f not in our lifetimes, in our grandchildren's, perhaps.) Human history shows that groups of people who are disarmed will inevitably get horribly punished - it is just a matter of when.