[BozemanLUG] http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=559

[David Eder]

Some thoughts:

Two bullets a year ago could have changed the whole administration.  It
doesn't take nukes or attack helicopters to overthrow an administration
gone amok.

The Americans were vastly outnumbered and outgunned in the Revolutionary War.

The right to bear arms is not the only part of the equation.  There is
also the freedom of the press.  An informed public has far more power than
a military drawn from that informed public.

The government routinely restricts rights guaranteed in the Constitution. 
I can't think of a single right that doesn't have a least some
restriction.

Revolutions are rarely legal.

If we apply the choice mantra "If you don't like abortions, don't have
one.", we get "If you don't like guns, don't have one."  Hmmm, somehow
that logic doesn't work here either.


David.


> Ed,
>
> This is way off topic but what the hey?
>
> I'm not against the 2nd Amendment but it is really a joke.  The founding
> fathers had no idea the kinds of weapons that would exist in the future.
>
> What do I mean by that?
>
> Well, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people, or
> citizens of a state would be armed well enough to overthrow or defend
> themselves against a federal government gone wrong... like the founding
> fathers did.  It is to ensure that the citizens can band together and take
> out an evil government with violence if need be.  Ok, fine... nothing
> wrong with that concept...
>
> BUT...
>
> ...our government has nukes, and strike helicopters and fighter planes...
> and bombers... and tanks... and surface to air missiles... and
> intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel at 18,000 mph and be
> anywhere in the world within 30 minutes.  Unless we allow our citizenry to
> have the same weapons... can we really compete with that?  I think the
> answer is so clear I don't have to state it.
>
> That isn't to say that I think citizens should have all of that stuff...
> just that the 2nd Amendment is pretty meaningless today... and if it makes
> some people feel better to have an automatic weapon... or whatever... more
> power to them... but they can't really protect themselves from nor
> overthrow such an armed government with pee shooters.
>
> Some might argue that state militias (the Reserves and National Guard) are
> fairly well armed and under the control of the state governor... but I
> don't want to even consider a military conflict between a state (or
> multiple states) and another state or the federal government.  That just
> isn't on the same scale as the 2nd Amendment envisioned.
>
> ----- "Edward Dunagin" <edunagin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well worth reading! (http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=559)
>>
>> Edward Dunagin-Dunigan
>> Bozeman, MT 59718
>> mobile 406-570-0992
>> Land line 406-556-7282
>> EKIGA: sip:edunagin at ekiga.net
>> http://doas.montanalinux.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at bozemanlug.org
>> http://lists.bozemanlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> TYL,
> --
> Scott Dowdle
> 704 Church Street
> Belgrade, MT 59714
> (406)388-0827 [home]
> (406)994-3931 [work]
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at bozemanlug.org
> http://lists.bozemanlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>