At Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:00:44 -0600, you wrote:
>
>it appears as if joe dees wrote (I think - the formatting on this post is
>badly scrambled):
>> Automatic weapons
>> did not exist when the framers wrote the Constitution, nor
>> did rockets or nukes. May I be so bold as to suggest that,
>> had they, the Constitution itself would have pried them from
>> the fingers of the general populace?
>
>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.
>
>Billy Brown, MCSE+I
>bbrown@conemsco.com
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher