"The world would be better off without these whack jobs."

Holy shit.

That obscene statement is going to bring me over to Lalo's defense, because I think y'all are forgetting some history.

A few years before the Viper Militia was busted, we had a group here in Arizona which was set up and busted by the FBI. EMETIC - the Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy. This group of four people was infiltrated by an FBI agent - not an informant, an actual agent. The agent entrapped them into committing some big-time felonies, by attempting to drop a power line tower between the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and a Central Arizona Project water pumping station (more details near the bottom of this).

In the end, they pled guilty and did about the same amount of time as the Vipers.

Were they dangerous? Depends on where you sit. I don't think so. But the prosecution held a press conference accusing them of attempted infanticide, as cutting the power line might have shut down the power plant, leading to a chain reaction power failure in neonatal intensive care facilities all over the southwest. Ridiculous shit, in other words. People were saying, you guessed it, "The world would be better off without these whack jobs."

The worm turns.

The Vipers were noisy, stupid assholes, and I'll be damned if I'll defend them. But I'll be damned if I'll wish them dead, or stand silent while others wish them dead.

Hancock's self-posted bio: http://ernesthancock.com/bio.html

No mention of military service. And, you can be 100% sure that he would've listed it if he had it!

I'm guessing that in the late 1700's or early 1800's, if a citizen had shown up outside a government building, minding his own business, but wheeling his own private cannon, the Founding Fathers would have expressed a WTF.

You're full of shit.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions: [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'