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 
 
 
		
	
		
		
		
		
		
	
		 
			
 
			
			
			
				 
            
			
			
            
            
                
			
			
		 
		
	
	
	 |