These are set-piece arguments; please take this discussion off line. Thanks. FWI, I also find more to agree with Mike and Mark than with KPJ.
At 09:22 99.04.07 -0700, you wrote:
>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
>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