-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of William Lefkovics
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:52 PM
>>> I always thought, as a non-american, that the 2nd amendment
>>> was to provide more of an arms balance against between public
>>> and military. A deterrent against any form of military rule.
Here's the wording on the 2nd amendment:
"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."
Here's what a militia is:
"The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military
force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense,
emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times
of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed
to a fixed term of service."
The goal of the 2nd amendment is to have armed people with guns that can be
called up and used in military activities by the government. There is
nothing about self-defense nor protecting oneself against government
oppression in the amendment. Regardless the amendment is clear that
Americans get to have guns.
Richard
P.S. Notice also the use of the word "regulated" in the amendment.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
