So marijuana is a dis-qualifier, but you got nothing to say about beverage alcohol?

Seriously?

Your reasoning on pot should mean a similar choice should have to be made so that if you own a gun you can never even have one beer.

You swore an oath to The Constitution. If it's enacted, it becomes part of The
Constitution to which you swore that oath.

If that oath included a "but only the version in existence right now" clause, then imagine the clash between military and the public when Prohibition was repealed.

It is horrible, misspelling "populace" like that.

In other places, The Constitution, and the various Amendments, are rather particular about using people or persons, and I'm starting to wonder if the Second wasn't written screwed up on purpose, so that no one could say for absolute certain what it means.

According to current rules of grammar, usage, and sentence construction, the Second Amendment (although it may have made sense at the time, according to the standards of that time) nowadays looks like the result of the collision of two different sentences, and your addition of that single word in that part of it doesn't make it any clearer, unless maybe you were trying to prevent the infringement of a well regulated militia.

The key word there is pacify. We certainly have the weapons technology to allow us to just kill everybody there (and let God sort them out, I suppose), it's trying to avoid collateral damage, human fatality-wise, that makes things problematic.

But we aren't as tribal here in the States, and in a situation where the actual military was unleashed domestically, neighbor would be more likely to give away neighbor, especially if the alternative was having the entire neighborhood reduced to dead bodies and smouldering rubble just to get the guys in one house.

And our military has the firepower to do that to an entire neighborhood, and then another, and then another....

If it gets to the point domestically that due process and all that is out the window, the civilians are outgunned, because they can't afford their own air force, or a navy that can sit offshore and bombard them from miles away, etc.

Are you quite certain that that was the intent of the authors, and not a viable alternative to a standing army, or some other reason? The whole point of the Constitution with the establishment of elected representation and restrictions on the powers of the federal government was to have a functional government from which the populace would not need to defend itself. Were they expecting that one amendment to deter a government which ignored the rest of the text?

I would think that well-regulated would include "could reasonably be trusted to obey the chain of command and not just decide for themselves who to fight when, where, and how, and to not be as big a threat to the general populace as any invading army".

Which is why the Second doesn't start out "A bunch o' likkerd up good ol' boys with shootin' irons, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The wording of the Second Amendment is not particularly clear, period. Unfortunately.

But we do know that the authors were pro-militia in large part because they were very nervous about the alternative--a large standing army.

The world and technology have changed so much since then that I'd be very nervous about our not having a somewhat large standing army.

Wasn't that pretty much the only reason to buy Computer Shopper?

(well, except for the Lab of Doom and Pepsi-Cola)

In that case, shouldn't it be "What good print media are left?", media being plural and all?

Of course the NYT is liberal, remember how liberally Judith Miller helped Cheney sell the war?

Nonsense! If there is such a thing as Christian Science, then it certainly should be closely monitored.

Didn't CSM shut down its print edition a while back?

Try different newspapers and see if she's expressing a political view.

Or tabloid versus traditional fold in the middle, see if it's a class thing.

Let me know how she feels about USA Today.