</font><font color="blue" class="small">( How many civilians do you know of that could actually shoot someone and not feel anything except the recoil? )</font>
How many of our defending forces are any different?
More importantly, do we really WANT people fighting for our country's name and honor, who DON'T feel compassion for our foe's, many whom feel they are defending THEIR country's honor? Things aren't always as black and white as they seem.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Maybe we'd all be better off leaving fighting wars to the military and fighting crime to the police.
)</font>
Although I agree with your assumptions, I disagree strongly with your conclusions. Where was Flight 93 aimed, and what would have been the results if the passengers had waited for the "authorities" to take charge?
JMHO, but "Homeland Security" is a joke and always will be until we stop assuming our "Patriotic Duty" starts at the polls, and ends when our preferred politician is elected. When our forefathers added the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights, they assumed we would shoulder the responsibility which goes with the right to bear arms. We have lost sight of that vision.
Instead of prying into civilian's lives, our government should be aiding us to identify risks... and we should be training, so we ARE qualified to aid the official military and police. By definition, the militia is NOT an armed force trained by the government; it is citizens armed to defend against threats. It's degree of effectiveness depends on the innitiative of each individual.
In rural areas dialing "911" is defined as "Dial a prayer for police"
I got a real wakeup call when I realised that at least some of the
B@$t@rds that flew the 9-11 planes drove past my house, on their route to infamy.
If we expect others to assume our risks, expect them also to assume our rights.