On 12/19/2014 1:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2014 at 23:15, Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
They also failed to foresee that hand-held weapons would become so
powerful.
You're referring to these:
http://www.damninteresting.com/davy-crockett-king-of-the-atomic-frontier/ ?
Wish I'd seen that before I made my last post! Yes, exactly. If the US govt was serious
about the right to bear arms those would be on sale in Wal-mart or K-mart, or whatever
they're called. Yet I bet even the NRA doesn't advocate that.
It's extrapolating from a false premise. The purpose of the right-to-bear arms was to
avoid the need for a standing army - not to create some balanced opposition to one. Every
able bodied male citizen was assumed to be a member of "the militia", i.e. could be called
upon for defense. Only arms appropriate to single soldier would be guaranteed. Not an
airforce or a nuclear weapon or even a heavy machine gun which usually has a two or three
man crew.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
