Comment below:

**

--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> 
wrote:
> 

**snip** 

> Of course the means of destruction do matter: Thats why automatic
> weapons were invented in the first place, because the one who had 
them
> could win wars with it. They are just a more effective means of
> killing, and therefore they present also a bigger danger to the
> public. If Americans really thought that having guns can protect 
them
> against their government going berserk, why not allow them to have
> private tanks in their gardens, or organize themselves into
> paramilitaric armies.
> 
> The equation will be:
> effectiveness of weapon = greater danger to the public
> 
> > But returning to the US scenario - I CAN'T see any justification 
for 
> > people holding on to arms. They would NOT stop an 
undemocratic "coup" 
> > or restore democracy through violence. Governments these days are 
> > just TOO powerful. 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.
>

**end**

An armed citizenry using only small arms to defend itself against a 
larger and far better equipped armed force can be quite effective.  
The example of Iraq speaks volumes to how effective that can be and 
how devastating and costly to the greater military force that 
attempts to subdue such an armed populace; Afghanistan during the 
Soviet occupation is another.  Feisty people with guns, even small 
arms, are a real problem to overreaching governments, whether they be 
foreign or domestic.

Whatever rational and reasonable arguments there may be about or 
against gun ownership and easy availability of firearms in the US, 
the 2d Amend. clearly posits an armed citizenry as a deterent to 
government overreaching and tyranny.  Power unchecked inevitably 
leads to the abuse of power.  You can't get rid of guns in the US 
because that genie is already out of the bottle. I believe that the 
framers of the US Constitution cleary envisaged that eventuality and 
the need for it.

The reason why the private citizen can't have weapons with even 
greater firepower is because once government power is established, 
even a government founded by revolution, it begins to consolidate its 
control and power over the citizenry and the government has attempted 
to restrict weaponry as much as it can.  That's what the framers saw 
as an inherent problem with government and the 2d Amend. was 
articulated right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights as a check, 
if not a cure, to that issue.

Reply via email to