>
> > Wojtek: I find it very peculiar that the SCOTUS that insists on literal
> > interpretation of the constitution, has decided to totally ignore the
> > phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> > free State" in the second amendment. Literal interpretation my ass.
> > These clowns are stooges rubber stamping whatever powerful monied
> > interests put before their noses.
>
> Ha. The court has tolerated a whole host of right-wing militias. I somehow
> doubt it would show the same forbearance to an Occupy group which decided
> to invoke the second amendment and arm itself in self-defence.
Though it is sort of a side step from this thread, I was reminded that two of the most visceral domestic terror plots in recent memory - the OKC bombing and the DC sniper, who was active during the time we lived in the area (I still remember ducking while I was pumping gas) - were the product of people who were basically like the folks covered in the book Irregular Army that Doug profiled a few weeks ago. If it is weird that SCOTUS allows for right wing militias, it is absolutely loony that the army feels okay basically arming and training paramilitaries who might eventually pose a threat to their power. Unless, of course, they think those folks might be of use: they've come in handy in Columbia, Afghanistan, and many other places, but it is weird to think of them as useful on home turf. Is this just economically determined buffoonary - we're going back to having a league of mercenaries instead of a standing army. I don't know enough about military history to interpret this, but it seems like a bigger threat to national security than guns on their own.
The DC sniper was highly trained and, from what I can tell, relatively sane. Just a ruthless plot involving terrorizing civilians - complements of good ol Uncle Sam and the US Army.
sean