"Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''')."

In other words, it can't regulate the arms of the National Guard.

"I know what the Constitution intended, and I know what moral reasons there are for citizens being armed."

I know, too, that the Constitution intended each person's vote should be counted, but that doesn't mean Bush isn't President.

There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking. In this case, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms isn't Constitutional, and anyone who thinks differently ought best not act on that.

Arf