-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  
-> 
-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.

No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.
 
-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
-> number of times.  

No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
by Hamilton. 

