Want opinions here...

I know a few lawyers (don't worry, they work on the side of good) who have dealt with liability issues before. A standard "come at your own risk" disclaimer would insulate you from legal liability so long as you didn't do anything grossly dangerous (ie "You there run around on the 100 yard line while we do our quick fire drills.")

I think it could be done just fine. In fact...I have an idea.

Unfortunately, I'm a little late returning to this party and the discussion seems to have evolved since the OP. However, I'll answer the OP anyway.

I've reread the relevant portion of DC v Heller where the ever so eloquent Justice Scalia addresses your first question re: "to keep and bear arms" (it's long but quite interesting in it's relevance both historical and for today):

Go here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

and read from Page 7 and start at para: b. "To Keep and Bear Arms" and read through at least page 16. You can see that Justice Scalia is adamant that to "bear arms" means anything but to "bear arms" as only a soldier or to be at war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

Here's the rub: "to keep and bear arms." The italisized part gets no attention. Why? I think that personal protection, hunting and sports are all well and good effects of the 2nd amendment, but it says right there that "a well regulated (drilled & trained) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." as the explanatory clause. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure no government tried to break up the militias. Our rights to defend ourselves and keep arms for other purposes is, of course, a wonderful consequence of this. But it is my impression that the Founders rightfully envisioned that differentiating overmuch between "the army" and "the people" was harmful to both domestic security and prudent war policy.

What do people here think? All of you are gun owners and lovers of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think that militias - in the sense of locally controlled, volunteer groups whose purpose is to help keep the peace (quell riots or help with other local disturbances / disasters) and defend their community from outside invasion (by tyrant or foreign enemy) - have any role or use at all in the modern context? Or are they made obsolete by extensive police / national guard / professional military men?

---

At the time the 2nd Amend was written the "militia" did in fact mean all able-bodied males within a certain age range whether they be farmers, lawyers, laborers or shopkeepers. The founding fathers did not like the idea of a standing army and saw the militia as being responsible for the common defense when needed.

And keep in mind that "regulated" was not used in the same context necessarily as "drilled & trained". As iamhunter explained it's meaning was used to describe a citizenry that was ready and capable of bearing arms for the common defense.

How does that apply today? That's a good question. I would argue that in terms of "the common defense" most people would say that function has been made obsolete by our modern police forces (or military, depending on the circumstances). On a personal level it's still quite relevant. You might "bear arms" for defense of self and property or come to a neighbor's defense in the absence of police protection.

I'm a firm believer that "we the people" should be allowed to bear any and all small arms suitable for military service and "we the people" should be well-versed in their operation and function. That's probably way too radical for most people. But I think that was certainly the intent of the 2nd Amend and I wouldn't be bothered at all if I lived in a society where able-bodied men and women went about their daily business with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder. On the other hand were probably fortunate that that sort of behavior isn't normally necessary, as a general rule. When it comes to instances of major civil disturbances and such one might be better off staying close to home to protect his family and his immediate neighbors. After all, we do pay and maintain police forces for that sort of thing.

As a matter of fact, I make my living teaching many of "the people" how to use various arms in defense of self and property. I guess in a way that keeps "the militia" alive and well in certain segments of society.

I'd certainly consider joining/organizing a "militia" as long as it was clear the intent was simply to meet on a regular basis and trade ideas and skills for the bettement of the group and everything was conducted lawfully.

I do have kind of a hard time with the whole dress-up-in-camo thing, though. Not that I care if anyone does, it's just not for me. Then again, even though I carry concealed religiously and teach classes I don't even do the whole "urban tactical" thing. No 5.11 type clothes and such for me. Personal preference only...not an indictment.

Thats the thing...if you want to be serious it all has to be lawful. I don't want to ever imply I'd ever be interested in something that was conducted against the law.

Also I always thought wearing 5.11 defeated the point of concealed carry. Does anyone wear 5.11 who doesn't?

I don't think there has been anything discussed so far that is against the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

I don't think there has been anything discussed so far that is against the law.

---

Neither do I. Just reinforcing the idea.

I will return to this thread when Dallas is done styling on the Eagles.

Edit to add: They mad 'cause we stylin' on them.

"Attention all units. Ass-kickin' in progress, Cowboys Stadium."

After the Katrina hurricane a friend of mine organized a donation plan, 10 or 12 of us found areas to park donation containers, and we drove down to Mississippi and passed out stuff needed.
We also passed out money in the form of Wallmart gift cards to people who needed it.
We did this trip twice. No government intervention, we were quick in and out and we were able to adjust our plans and donations based on the needs at the time.
If I recall corrrectly we were able to give stuff and money to people in need with in 17 days of the donation.
We did this for nothing and we had little or no prior plans.
The majority of us were prior military or smart private business owners.
Some of us carried firearms due to reports of disharmony in the affected areas.
My point is free people with brains can do what a government can't do.
FEMA, Home Land Security and the rest of that crap will only spend money and waste time and capitol. The individual who knows the problems on the ground is the best defense.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie got more houses built than the government did, and in less time. There is almost nothing the government can do that a private enterprise can't do better.