It was really close...

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your government
and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution were well
aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.


People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But do you
(or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are permitted as
US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own
government?

Yes, people debate the intent now, but that is only because they are
trying to rewrite history. There is plenty of contemporaneous writings
in the Federalist papers and other sources that clearly support the
clear intent of the second amendment. Only those trying to rewrite
history debate the intent today.

And, yes, common small arms and rudimentary weapons can have a very
effective impact. Look at Vietnam, Irag, etc.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Yes, people debate the intent now [...]

My point in mentioning that was to attempt to discourage someone from
latching onto that question and diverting the real issue in my post.
Apparently, I was unsuccessful.

And, yes, common small arms and rudimentary weapons can have a very
effective impact. Look at Vietnam, Irag, etc.

Not really sure what you mean. The folks in Vietnam were NOT limited to
"common small arms and rudimentary weapons" (I'd hardly call a SAM site a
"rudimentary weapon", for example). In Iraq, the folks causing trouble
aren't coming close to taking over the country, nor will they ever.

Try again?

Pete