...to clarify the issue in our cities and towns? I mean writing letters to editors of newspapers explaining the fact that the ban is un-Constitutional plus the process involved in getting a machine gun might bring to light some of the underhanded tactics that the left uses to scare people. What do we have to lose and maybe some people can be made to realize that the lies the anti-gun crowd spews out are exactly that, lies.

Quoted: ...to clarify the issue in our cities and towns? I mean writing letters to editors of newspapers explaining the fact that the ban is un-Constitutional plus the process involved in getting a machine gun might bring to light some of the underhanded tactics that the left uses to scare people. What do we have to lose and maybe some people can be made to realize that the lies the anti-gun crowd spews out are exactly that, lies.

The newspapers don't care.  They are on the side of the gun banners.

I write 2-3 letters a week to the rags here in Tampa, but get published maybe once a month.
Yet I see the same people pushing their socialist drivel weekly.

Why?  Because the editors want letters supporting THEIR position, not the truth.

I think the SCOTUS will decline to hear such a specific case. We're better off addressing the right to keep and bear arms as a whole. In other words we need a clear definition of militia, who's in it and what the rights would be. While we here are all probably in agreement as to what this means, I think years of erosion to our rights by the left & their lap-dog the media has to a certain point convinced a large part of the population that there are no such rights.

In my opinion, we are better off asking for general clarifications; such as why the 5th and the 9th Circiut Courts have opposing views on the 2nd. I think we deserve a S.C decision on this.

Quoted: In other words we need a clear definition of militia, who's in it and what the rights would be.

I think this would be a disaster.  It's highly likely that the courts would rule that the militia consists of the national guard.  What's more important is the wording:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The reading that we need is something like:

Because you need to have a militia, which COULD be composed of private citizens, private citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms so that they COULD support or be part of the militia in times of crisis.

A straight reading of the militia definition by US law will hold that only adult males of certain ages are the militia, and it isn't reasonable today to think that a court would claim that men have a right to bear arms and women don't.

Quoted: In other words we need a clear definition of militia, who's in it and what the rights would be.

Founders already covered all this. We just need a judiciary that agrees with them.

I think this would be a disaster.  It's highly likely that the courts would rule that the militia consists of the national guard.  What's more important is the wording: A straight reading of the militia definition by US law will hold that only adult males of certain ages are the militia, and it isn't reasonable today to think that a court would claim that men have a right to bear arms and women don't.

I'll have to disagree my friend. A lot of other states have much clearer definition such as Virginia's. They were written at or about the same time as the US Constitution and therefore along with the Federalist papers cast a more complete view of how the Founding Fathers truly meant the 2nd to be interpreted.

VIRGINIA:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Quoted: Quoted: In other words we need a clear definition of militia, who's in it and what the rights would be. Founders already covered all this. We just need a judiciary that agrees with them.

+1
If people can't read, it is not my problem.

Quoted: I'll have to disagree my friend. A lot of other states have much clearer definition such as Virginia's. They were written at or about the same time as the US Constitution and therefore along with the Federalist papers cast a more complete view of how the Founding Fathers truly meant the 2nd to be interpreted. VIRGINIA: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

New Hampshire is much more clear

2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.].  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

I wish the founding fathers hadn't put in the justification clause.  There would be no question.  Amendment II s/b ammended as originally intended

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

i've wirtten a few letters to different papers throughout the years too, to no avail.

newspapers want to sell newspapers. which means we'll be seeing plenty of headlines like this: "MACHINE GUN SAMMY GIVES PUBLIC MACHING GUNS!!!"

instead of (on page 8): "Senators wrong, 2nd Ammend. is for the people."

I would like a legal full-auto SBR P90 w/ suppressor  to go along with the PS90.