It is illegal for the police to maintain a registry of firearms. Every such registry has always been used ultimately, for confiscation purposes. Since the Pa constitution states, flatly, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned," it is entirely consistent with our constitution that law abiding citizens be able to carry their weapons on a rail way.

What's more, all "GUN FREE ZONES" do is tell criminals that ALL of their victims will be completely unarmed and unable to stop them.

To anyone that thinks banning guns (or anything else) actually works, just simply pass legislation that bans all criminals. See how well that works out for you.

Since I do not see it in these comments, I want to add to Karen's post. There is no law in PA that makes open carry illegal. Open carry is carrying a firearm in a holster that is openly displayed, (not covered). The only restriction is that a person MUST have an LTCF (License to Carry Firearm) to open carry in a first class city. The only city that meets that requirement (pop. 1,000,000+) in PA is Philadelphia.
AND, one of the most misunderstood / misquoted facts about an LTCF, is that some people believe that once you get an LTCF, you must then and can only carry concealed. These people mistakenly think that an LTCF is a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon permit) and to them it means concealed carry only. Some sheriff's office/ police departments in PA will try to tell you this, but that is incorrect. No where on an LTCF is the word concealed.
An LTCF has many purposes - carry concealed, carry in a car, carry in a federal gun-free zone (school zone - not inside the building), carry concealed in a state park, etc. But an LTCF is NOT required to open carry in PA, other than in Philadelphia. Therefore, if this rail trail is publicly owned, and I believe it is, the trail rule of not allowing firearms is pre-empted by the PA Uniform Firearms Act section 6120: (a) General rule. No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession..(skip for space)....when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.

Thanks for the concise explanation Derf.

I had someone say to me recently, "The worst number of guns at a mass shooting is one."

And if you're a member of the Brady Campaign, then you would egg the criminal on, help him hold the victim down, loan him a gun, then hold a press conference on the evils of gun ownership and use the crime and an example of why people should never own guns.

Why? Pa is one of the most pro gun states in all the US.

PA doesn't have an open carry law. PA's law doesn't address open carry outside of Philly or absent of a declared state of emergency. PA's main carry law only regulates concealed carry and vehicle transporting of a "firearm"(ie: handgun, SBS, or SBR). If there isn't a law against an act - it is de facto legal.

People are carrying guns all around you, you just don't realize it. They are the supermarket, the bank, the gas station, the little league game. That's the beauty of concealed carry. Only the person carrying knows they have it.

Mortimer Layton - How do you feel about people carrying knives on the Rail Trail? What about screwdrivers? What about hammers? All of these common household items can be weapons although they are not as effective at a distance. If, however, someone really wants to rob you or do you harm and doesn't have a gun, there are many ways to do it.

Daniel Boone and Kit Karson carried guns on beautiful and serene trails.

Gun owners are not afraid if they carry a gun. Why do you fear the law-abiding gun owner ? Where'd you get the logic that a gun makes a good person into a murderer ?

Do you have more fear of a law-abiding gun owner than an armed criminal ?

You expressed my feelings exactly

Guess what Mortimer. People are carrying guns on the trail. The only difference is that now it's not ONLY criminals that are carrying them. You can too.

Maybe you should stay home.

Guns do not do anything, it requires a person to use a gun. Hunting yes, killing is for Criminals. Do you not wish to be able to protect yourself? The police can not be every where at all times! In less than 2 minutes you can be robbed, raped, or physically harmed, Response time for Police is considerably slower than this. Do not ever think that if guns are banned Mr. Criminal is going to give his up. You will be giving up your right to defend yourself from Criminals and the ability to protect yourself from a Government gone bad. See this page for good reasons to keep ourselves armed. http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html.

Your claims, and actions sure seem to be the acts of a sadomasochist which if that is what toots your personal whistle have at it.

As noted in the article, most sadomasochists are supposed intellectuals, book smart people, wow, that describes the snobbish anti gun extremists who claim to be so evolved to the tee! Acting out their subliminal needs to hurt and dominate themselves, but in your case, you wish to dominate others.

We do understand why a firearm upsets you in social settings .[1] A sexual fetish may be regarded as an enhancing element to a romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment)" or as a mental disorder/disorder of sexual preference if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.[

How evolved you intellectuals are, reverting to core human values and needs.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199909/the-pleasure-pain

You should really begin your research into your irrelevant beliefs and then you can demonstrate how you have the right to infer and project your beliefs and how that culminates from your sexual fetishism and sadomasochism upon everyone.

Most sadomasochists are harmless to others outside their little circle, the real question is where did your sadomasochism, in conjunction with your psychosocial problem, develop your overpowering need to control everyone else?

Mortimer, with all due respect, your hoplophobia is showing.

Think logically, instead of having your thoughts bounce around inside that liberal helmet you're wearing. Scenario: You're walking that trail. An unsavory person approaches you, pulls out a gun, whacks you across your jaw with it, and demands your watch, wallet, belt, shoes, and that nice leather jacket you're wearing. Question: Would prohibiting guns on the trail stop this from happening? Answer: No. Recommendation: Consider that law-abiding people are the only ones who (surprise!) abide by the law. Since they are not the ones you need to worry about, and the ones you do need to worry about will victimize you anyplace you and they happen to be, realize that your fear is a) unfounded, and b) if enacted into a prohibition, infringes on the right of peaceable people (including YOU) from protecting themselves.

Now, upon reflection, don't you feel just a LITTLE bit silly?

Mr. Layton, I absolutely agree with you.

And why not? It's not the device that's the problem, it's the person who controls it.

Or F-22's, or battle tanks, or a flame thrower, or a nuclear powered attack submarine.

On a trail, where men have de-capitated women who were walking their dog, a handgun, rather than an attack submarine, is very appropriate. The only people I know of who are mauled by bears on Alaska's trails are the antigun democrat/liberals. Everyone else knows enough to bring a shotgun (I don't know why, but they just know). I've never heard of an Alaskan who carried a hand grenade into Alaska's parks.

Cute comment, but i will actually take it seriously for a second, even though you were obviously being a smart ass. 1) Hand grenades are regulated explosive devices, and illegal to possess for almost everyone. 2) Hand grenades have a large lethal radius, and would present a huge risk to innocent bystanders, should you happen to lob one at a bad guy raping a puppy. ;)

@ Bill Cee:

Do you think only the Govt is responsible enough to have grenades, or do you agree with me that peaceful law-abiding people could own a grenade and never use it irresponsibly ?

Not part of the equation

And please allow me to express my deep admiration of the sexual appendage you are evidently able to deploy for self-defense in place of a gun. You must be very proud. I am certain every lady you know feels safer in your presence than with nearly any other man.

I admit that my own, personal peniis is pitifully inadequate for self-defense purposes.

It appears that you would prefer that women should be left defenseless, since they are anatomically unsuited for it. Plus, it makes them so much easier for you to subdue.

It’s also apparently a true belief of yours that the elderly and handicapped, regardless of size, do not deserve the right to self-defense, since their wang-fu will likely be inadequate for a variety of reasons. You obviously think that we don’t need such human rubbish, anyway.

I admit, I’ve always found it disturbing that the police and military, being unable to find recruits of your mighty dimensions, instead must brand them as the puny weaklings they are by issuing handguns and rifles.

Congratulations to you again, and I am sure we will hear more of your exploits as you defend your self, your family, your neighbors, and your nation with your wee-wee..

How to create gun free zone (2 minute video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8

Derf, they dont think, they need a brain, not to mention one capable of understanding logic and facts which overpower their underdeveloped mentality as advanced developed mental abilities (human) would allow them to control their overpowering emotional issues less developed primates have, so in reality they couldn't answer your question unless their master told them what to say.

So, anyone who is in favor of law and order, who is against municipal and county governments having the ability to skirt what laws they don't want to follow, and who wishes to have the ability to defend themselves in an isolated area, is suddenly a single-toothed redneck?

You should read up on the definition of an ad hominem attack, sir.

you'll pray one of us gun toting hilbillies is near if you are ever acosted

Glenn, why should we make the effort to save a person who hasn't the balls to save themselves?

So why do you think the legally carrying firearm owner is pointing his/her gun where ever??? Just don't understand your thinking on this......the holder of an LTCF carries in a holster and that is where the gun stays unless there is an extreme emergency/last chance situation. Very rarely to you hear in the news where an LTCF holder is arrested for pointing his firearm at anything/everything. I think you are also confusing a legal carrier with a criminal.....

@ Lower Saucon Guy:

Two gazelles are standing on the plains of Africa. One gazelle looks at the other, and says, "You know, i don't believe lions are really dangerous. No lion has ever ate me."

That's your argument. In a nutshell. You SPECIFICALLY have never been ate by a lion, so why bother arming yourself. Well....ask all the gazelles who have been ate already what their opinion is.

@Bill Cee.

Thanx for the cute little story, but it doesn't depict my situation at all. I already know that lions are dangerous. Do you think I live in a cave? I watch the news every day and know full well what kind of world we live in. I'm not anti gun or against a person's right to carry one. All I'm saying is that I don't personally feel the need to carry a gun on the Saucon Rail Trail, PERIOD. I have a snub nose 357 mag that I can pop into my pocket whenever I want to. If you want to carry a gun on the rail trail, knock yourself out. And you couldn't ask a Gazelle that's been ate what they think, they're dead.

Tom, I didn't say it couldn't happen, I'm saying I have a better chance of running into Donald Trump at the Giant. Mace or pepper spray would be better for most people. It can be carried in your hand and is readily accessible. If you're carrying a handgun, you have to draw it real quick and be an excellent marksman. Most people couldn't hit a watermelon at five feet away. And if you pull the gun, you have to mean business. If it gets to the point that I have to carry while I hike a trail, I'll go somewhere else. I think Brick barns watches too much tv. A machete, Ha !!!

Lower Saucon Guy: "If it gets to the point that I have to carry while I hike a trail, I'll go somewhere else."
Where???? Where else would you go??? Is there another trail somewhere that guarantees your safety??? Is it lined with police officers every 20 feet???

Just where is this utopia you speak of??? All of us would like to know, so we can go there too and not have to protect ourselves.....

Derf, Chill out man. You know as well as I do that there isn't any place or trail that is 100% safe let alone have police every 20 feet. What I'm saying is that I see no reason to have any fear on the rail trail. There has never been a report of any problems with the trail. I have hiked a lot of trails in my life, from the Appalachian to the backwoods of Algonquin in Canada, and all without carrying a handgun. I realize times are different these days and we seem to have a new breed of people in the area. I wouldn't go into certain areas without carrying, but the rail trail isn't one of them. The article is about your right to carry a gun and I support that to the death. I have many guns myself, so I'm not anti gun, I just don't feel the need to carry one on the rail trail. There are lots of trails in PA that are very remote also. All the State parks have trails too. If you're afraid to hike without a gun, then stay home and watch tv. We could go on and on with this, but what's the point.

Lower Saucon Guy,

"What I'm saying is that I see no reason to have any fear on the rail trail. There has never been a report of any problems with the trail." - There never was a problem reported at Columbine either, was there? It only takes one time, then what?

I have hiked a lot of trails all over PA, MD, VA also. I have been attacked by a dog at French Creek State Park and by a person on a trail in VA. I definitely see a need.

"I just don't feel the need to carry one on the rail trail...If you're afraid to hike without a gun, then stay home and watch TV."

So it seems we need to agree to disagree. But I don't look at this that way. I am not the one telling you to go out and buy a gun, get a license to carry, and take it with you wherever you hike. I will be the first to tell you that must be your decision, not mine, AND I WILL RESPECT THAT. But by you telling me that if I am afraid to hike without a gun, then I should stay home and watch TV - then your anti-gun, or anti-carry, is showing through very strong...and you are telling me that I shouldn't be on any trail with a gun. You need to respect my right to own a firearm, and my right and decision to carry and protect myself, just as I respect your right not to.

You don't feel the need to carry on any trail - perfect by me - I have hiked with many people that don't carry or own a firearm. But don't push that kind of thinking on me or anyone else, keep it to yourself.

OK Derf, I didn't mean to insult you. I apologize for the tv comment. I'm not anti gun or anti carry, believe me. I do respect your right to do as you please. I'm just saying, and for the last time, i don't feel the need to carry a gun on that trail. If I were to go back to Algonquin, I believe I would pack one there. The wolves were getting pretty close at night, I don't believe you can carry a concealed weapon in Canadas' provincial parks, but I have a 20 inch 12 gauge that would fit in my pack just nicely. Sorry to hear about you being attacked. It just never happened to me. Good Luck !!

Lower Saucon,
Several years back a young female was decapitated and found near a trail. Her pooch survived.

Remember Chandra Levy ? Her carcass was found in a shallow grave near a D.C. suburb TRAIL.

There are countless murders near or on a TRAIL.

When you advise us to stay home, you admit it's more dangerous on a TRAIL and safer at home.

Do you post a NO GUN sign outside your ''safe'' home ? Should Authorities place a NO WEAPONS ALLOWED sign at TRAILS ?

Brick Barns,

Yes, I remember that case, but it was an isolated incident. Actually murder on a trail is very rare and not countless like you imply. Sure there's crime committed on trails, but probably a lot less than what you think. I don't want to keep going round and round on this subject. It's getting old now, so do what you want to make you feel SAFE. I refuse to live my life filled with paranoia based on what "might happen." Good Luck and all the best to you.

LowerSaucon,
But you ARE paranoid, that's why you're here complaining "there's no need to be armed on the trail".

And actually, you're more afraid of the law-abiding gun owners than you are of the murderers and robbers.

GrowUpSaucon; What you apparently don't understand is that it is not a question of banning guns on the trail. State law says that the Boro of Hellertown CANNOT ban guns on the trail. It does not matter what you, me, or the boro, wants. The state passed a preemption law that says firearms cannot be banned by any municipality. This really is not open to discussion.

Pepper spray won't stop an attacker armed with a gun (and a machete for decapitating you). And do you need to be told again criminals ignore gun bans ?

Pepper spray can be defeated, trust me. Part of the training I did in the Marines consisted of being face-sprayed with military-grade OC (oleoresin capsicum, google it) and fighting through an obstacle course. It may hurt like hell, but it doesn't have the immediate incapacitation power of a firearm.

Not only that, but why would you want to deny people their Constitutional Rights? What about Right of Religion? What about Right of the Press? Free Speech? If you want to limit one right, then what stops you from limiting the rest of them? It's a slippery slope.

And you want to ban guns so no one is killed? What about the criminal who decides to attack a defenseless jogger...who would you rather have die? The innocent jogger, or the criminal attacker? Who has a greater claim to life in that case?

Also...have you ever seen a gun kill someone? I haven't. My guns don't move unless I hold them, or exert some force over them. They don't go off by themselves (despite what Hollywood says), they don't have a mind of their own; they are inanimate objects, like a shovel or a mop. More people are killed monthly by cars then are killed yearly by guns. Should we all walk, or revert to horse-centric transportation?

Don't you get it? It's LEGAL! All these people who want to make rules to suit themselves and circumvent the law.

I am sure criminals will adhere to your stupid idea. And Grow up.....The Pa constitution SPECIFICALLY STATES "The right of the people to to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned."

You do understand what that means right?

Guns.

I have had an LTCF since 1995, and I have carried my firearm, concealed and open, with me ever since. I have carried it in the malls, parks, all kinds of stores, the bus stop, banks, the gym, any restaurant, gas stations, convenience stores, boro monthly meetings in boro buildings, state buildings, bars, car dealers, state parks, federal parks, on buses, on trains, in taxis, etc., etc., etc. I carry it just like I do my wallet - every where. There are some places you can't and I don't, such as court houses, school buildings, federal buildings, and post offices. Also, there are some private businesses that post their store as "a gun free zone", so you can't carry there although you will only be cited for trespassing if you are asked to leave and refuse. But I generally do not patronize any business which does not allow me to exercise my 2nd Amendment right. I have never once removed my firearm from its holster since I have carried. But then again, I have fire extinguishers in my house and I have never used them either. But, some day I may have to, and I will be prepared for that situation.

We carry a gun or any of a variety of other self defense weapons.

The rule as they have it on their sign is unenforceable. They cannot take away your right to carry as they do not have the authority to have such a rule. If you were arrested, or even if you were illegally detained for carrying on the trail, you have a good case for filing charges against the person detaining you, and also have a case to file a 1983 lawsuit against that law enforcement (PD) and the borough. There are quite a few PDs and municipalities in PA that have lost lawsuits about this exact same thing. And actually, if you are just carrying a gun and not commiting any other unlawful act, law enforcement can only stop you and ask questions, but you have the right to not answer any questions, not ID yourself, not present an LTCF (unless in Philadelphia), and just walk away. Carrying a firearm is not grounds for a detention, "let me see your papers", run the numbers on your gun, or illegally removing the firearm from the carrier for officer safety. It was a decision by the supreme court that said an officer must have suspicion of a crime being committed, about to be committed, or has been committed, before he can stop a firearm carrier - not just the act of carrying on its own.

Hellertown vs Saucon Valley (not LST or UST)

Ms. Frankenfield, allow me to try to answer your questions...

The Rail Trail isn't just for joggers, bikers, and women pushing baby carriages. It's for anyone that wants to use it, without a motor vehicle. Yes, it is serene, peaceful, and a good place to unwind with a leisurely walk after work. It is still, however, part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and subject to the laws governing such. The Pennsylvania State Constitution states that "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned." There isn't wiggle room in that, ma'am, especially those last four words. Anyone who wishes to limit, regulate, or ban guns is going against both the state and national constitution, and is thus, de facto, wrong.

Also, you're worried about walking on the trail now they you know that your fellow law-abiding citizens carry guns? Why? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen someone walking around waving their weapon around haphazardly? I'm going to go ahead and say you haven't, because by-and-large, gun owners are mature, responsible adults who have a vested interest in the safety and security of themselves and their loved ones. You're worried about kids playing in back yards near the trail: again, why?! You are likely surrounded by gun owners, and haven't ever noticed it because we don't often broadcast that fact. Your fears, I'm happy to inform you, are unfounded. And kind of silly.

Brick, I am sorry but the Virginia Tech comment is out of line. Should all the students at colleges be carrying guns just in case? What does this comment have to do with Vida's opinion anyway or the topic of debate? Dale Frankenfield

Of course, this fear of the law abiding, of which you cant identify carrying a concealed weapon, is the same as a little child's fear of the mythical boogeyman.

A monster of a childs imagination which they cant show, see, much less articulate into reality.

All without the fear of the criminals who by government data, (USSDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment, annual report) commit the massive majority of violent crimes. which when combined with suiciders (over 92% of all deaths by illegal use of a firearm), justifiable homicides, and accidental deaths account for all but 7.5% of all illegal homicides.

So the truth is, this reference back to Vida's inferred claims is indeed relevent as it clearly identifies her as an anti gun person, hence the lack of credibility so prevalent in their lack of data or facts to defend their unsubstantiated fears and position.

Nice word. It is possible that Vida has a reason to fear guns, a reason that is far from irrational. Do not be so quick to judge and condemn.

Vida doesn't really fear guns or armed people. He expects to draw a majority over to his side by claiming I have put him in fear (as if I wrongly offended him). He knows he can win this debate if enough people side with him and not me. He also knows he can censor me if enough people agree to it.

Sadomasochism? -an innate and primal urge to control and dominate- sure sounds like anti gun extremists, but if it is your personal choice, have at it.
Projectionism? - projection onto another of the disturbed persons inner most fears of themselves or actions - we cant trust you with a gun as I am terrified of "what I would do".
Hoplophobia? - an inate fear of an inanimate object-how silly and childish that is eh!
Fetishism?- a belief that an inanimate object has supernatural powers to load, aim and fire itself - as if a gun is a sentient being and the root cause of violence as the anti gun extremists all infer.
Sexual Fetishism? -a mental disorder/disorder of sexual preference if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life - wow, what a perfect description of an anti gun extremist.
Mythomania (Pathological Lying)?-Pathological liars tend to come up with their lies compulsively and are often unable to back up their lies when questioned further for details- sure sounds like the anti gun extremists unable to demonstrate real data and facts rather than their afraid of the mythical boogeyman what if's stories and fantasies.
Schizophrenia? - the advanced stage of fetishim where these supernatural powers imbued by the ill person to the inanimate object, allow it to use voice or esp commands to someone in close proximity to force them to commit a violent act,

For all the above, see lowersauconguy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8

So, because one stupid, irresponsible fool brandished a weapon and treated it like a toy, trying to show off like a jackass, that you are going to live the rest of your life, beset by an irrational fear caused by a situation that would not have existed if this person was anywhere near sentient? Wow...I feel really bad for you, I really do. Not only are guns a good thing to have with you, they're a LOT of fun to shoot! If your fear ever subsides to sub-paralytic, try going to the Heritage Guild in Easton, rent a .22 (start small, since you're a newbie) and shoot holes in paper.

However, I doubt your fear will ever get to that level, so by all means, please continue relying on...everyone else...to protect you if things go badly for you ever.

Good luck with that...........

I vowed not to continue this ridiculous back and forth, but this moron you speak of is a veteran and had a license to carry a concealed weapon for over 40 yrs. He was showing off his new gun to someone and he was sure all bullets were out of the gun. He was NOT waving it around and acting like an idiot. You were NOT there, I was. In over 45 yrs nothing like this had ever happened to him. It was a stupid accident, one that I was also VERY angry about. I thought this was an horrible thing to have happened and we never again went to his home. But this has nothing to do with the rail trail issue,only how we personally feel about guns. But that's it ,I'm done. No more back and forth with you or anyone else. Obviously you can not respect anyone's opinion if it doesn't match your opinion.

"...learning more about life, and how fast one can be taken away."

Lady, usually I don't pull this card, but you just stepped in it:

How fast life can be taken away eh? I'm a Marine. I did four years service to my country. I served two tours in Afghanistan. I lost more friends than I want to think about. I'm not trying to talk a big game, but what do you know about how fast a life can be taken away? My best friend was killed in action in September of 2010. My former squad leader was killed in action in May of that year, my friend was killed before that, in March. A friend of mine lost both legs just this past January. I've been shot at, rocketed, and mortared. I've 'seen the elephant'. Do not ever talk to me about "...how fast life can be taken away." You don't have the first clue.

Blaming good gun owners for the crimes committed by criminals.

Hi Vida, I thought that both stories merited links to (this) earlier story about guns on the trail, since the issue seems to have struck a nerve with many people. Both stories also related to public safety concerns, and of course editorial judgment was involved. Josh

Because of the 2nd amendment, we can kill cops and soldiers if the govt goes rogue.

Dude: what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment ?

I would suspect that the poster is a member of the Brady Campaign. It is well known that they will come into forums like this and play, "Redneck Hillbilly Crazy psychopathic Gun Owners," to discredit lawful gun owners. What people don't understand is that, generally, gun owners have no problem with the police. In fact, the NRA trains thousands of police officers every year.

The police grew out of the Night Watch (VigilAnte) when instead of everyone pulling guard duty at night, a group would be chosen to do that for us and would be supported by the community. There is nothing wrong with police, unless they exceed their authority - and then there are solutions... complaints, petitions, even lawsuits. Guns? Not going to happen, at least not in today's world.

However, the Brady Campaign benefits whenever the press is negative toward gun owners. Posing as a gun owner, usually with the line, "I'm a gun owner and have a number of guns, however, I have no problem with common sense gun laws...." Then goes on to present the disarmament argument that the Brady Bunch love so much, which is, "If you give up your gun, when a criminal attacks you, they will just take your money or body, not kill you, so you are really safer."

So don't let this paid Brady Shill Blogger get under your skin, you're not talking to a real person, at all.

You mean to say (you're afaid to say it) "defense" from cops and soldeirs if or when the govt goes rogue (tyrannical or oppresive). You've been brainwashed to not say many things in this country. The 2nd amendment is not about your "boredom".

Here's what cops and soldiers did at New Orleans after hurricane Katrina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&NR=1

I live in Westmont, Illinois, and every cop in Illinois knows me and where I live. They do because Amerika has become a nation of jackbooted thugs. The 1st and 2nd amendment are for speaking out against Govt (our worst enemy) and so we can be armed if the Govt goes rogue. Cops are the Govt's strongarm.

None of us wants to shoot anyone, good or bad. I'm not into your conspiracy theories either. And MILITIAS are as American as apple pie (the word 'militia' is in the Bill of Rights). I wish the cops would leave me alone, but they won't because they think they have the right to know what every American is thinking because they don't respect the Bill of Rights.

If cops respected the 2nd amendment, YOU would not be afraid to say what the 2nd amendment is really for.

Would you force me to leave the Trail, Mary ? Huh ? Would you demand the jack-boots send me home to Illinois ? Do you expect visitors to show their papers when they reach the border of PA ? Should everyone be searched ?

"You are some wacko." [Mary]

Are you a psychology expert ? Do you have an advanced degree in psychology ? No ? Then why use dogma to control another Americano ?

You appear hysterical.