Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Cecil Chapman wrote:


But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was

important

for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to

call,

in times of threat.

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to

have

armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).

Any

cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you

just

point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns

are

just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of

registration -

though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed

with

stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the

street

doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo grin.

You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
is it?



What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the

line

between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had

a

magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of

thinking

was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs

for

that.

Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
one means and force is the other.


Matt


The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
a point where we must start again. I'll admit that I have a hard time
compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
keenly aware of this issue!


Matt