KPJ [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>(a) one cannot overthrow a government which has nuclear
>capability with puny guns,
Nukes are useless in a civil war. You really beleive that the US government would nuke NYC in order to save it?
>(b) the use of weapons in urban survival combat
>does not appear to be purpose of the 2nd amendment
In fact that's the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment; the founders were scared that a standing army would be used against the people of their new country and hence the Constitution guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so that defence could be by civilian militia and there would be no need of an army. Armies are only needed for offence, a well-trained (original meaning of "well-regulated") militia is much better for defence.
>(c) the 2nd amendment
>would seem to refer to a militia and not to individuals as such.
To an illiterate, perhaps. But someone with some kind of reading comprehension might believe that when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" they might actually be talking about individual people and not about the militia -- as they are in other amendments -- and that if they meant the militia they would actually have written "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". I'm still amazed that anyone can take this nonsense seriously.