joe dees wrote:
> At Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:00:44 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Actually, the Constitution explicitly presumes that private citizens will
> >own naval warships (see: Letters of Marquee and Reprisal), which were the
> >most expensive and specialized weapons of the day. As I understand it,
> >their main reason for favoring private weapon ownership was as a defense
> >against tyrannical government, which obviously requires private access to
> >just about anything.
> >
> >Of course, today there is a real question as to whether an armed citizenry
> >is really a significant barrier to oppression, but that's a different
> >argument.
> >
> But an argument I raised previously when I argued that Zed and his varmint gun would be useless against tanks and mortars, but if we gave every Tom, Dick and Zed their own tanks and mortars that it would be a sad day for the corner convenience stores.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey, President Lorrey Systems ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:mike@lorrey.com ------------------------------------------------------------ "A society which trades freedom for some measure of security shall wind up with neither." -----Benjamin Franklin "The tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." -----Thomas Jefferson "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." -----US Constitution, 2nd Amendment "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands..." -----Anonymous "Once we got their guns away from them, taking their money was REAL easy." -----Unknown North Korean Commissar