Yeah, but what would you expect from one of those crazy far right-wing whacko web sites?

P.S. my comment above is SATIRE.

I'm so excited. I can't think of a time when the pro-2nd Amendment forces were as ready. We got the goods. If SCOTUS fails to honor the 2nd Amendment, it won't be because we lack facts.

.... and the best part, we are at the beginning of restoring the 2nd Amendment. So many lawsuits ... So little tim.

So let's start taking seriously the responsibility that goes with the right described in the Second Amendment already. Join the militia unit closest to you. The real militia is worlds apart from the way we're described by the talking heads on the evening news. Check it out for yourself. http://wwww.awrm.org
Shalom.

And notice where the links to those militia statutes go! Hint, hint!

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Flick. John Adams, for example, made rather a point of expressing his concern about militias not under governmental direction or supervision in A Defence of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States of America. There could well come a point where revolutionary force is required to restore the Constitution to primacy in America. But until such point, private militias aren't what the Constitution protects.

What we need is 'Militia Attitude' in our everyday lives.

Not so sure about attitude. Personally I suggest we do like Switzerland does - i.e. universal training. The bad news (or good news depending on how you look at it) is that we'll have significantly less money to spend on overseas military commitments if we actually decide to have a militia. On the other hand, the US itself, will be much more secure. Our friends in Europe will have to fill in the gap. They have the money, and only need the will. I suspect we can give them a nudge in the right direction.

It just occurred to me, reading the American Thinker piece, that the 18-45 age range for the militia was put in place at a time when the average life expectancy was what? 55? Topping out at 45 is woefully inadequate under current conditions. "Able-bodied and above the age of 18" would be more like it. I know some pretty tough 70-somethings.

You need to remember that the 18-45 age range applied to those who were obligated to perform militia service if called up; it did not limit service solely to that group.

Additional volunteers welcome.

It seems passing strange that the anti-gunners who claim a handgun is no good for self defense at home, cannot explain why they are issued to the police. And, how it is that many of the same folks who say it is absurd to think an armed citizenry could stand up against a modern army, are the same ones who want to declare defeat in Iraq in the face of a relatively ill-armed rag-tag bunch of terrorists.

While it took a while during the American Revolution to actually field effective armies on the colonal side, the rag tag army of the people did pretty good against the best army in the world at the time, somewhat similar to Iraq. Unconventional warfare can be very effective. It works best though if the other side (Us for instance) has rules against retalatory punishments. The Germans in WWII at times would round up and shoot a bunch of villagers because of resistance activity. That put a damper on some operations.
The IRA was effective against the British as long as they were selective and only hit the army, when they became indiscriminant that changed and the population started to go against them.
That is happening in Iraq now.