> It appears as if Michael S. Lorrey <email@example.com> wrote:
> |If you want to take this off list, I'm sure it would be appreciated by many
> + others on the list. We just finished a rather big debate on this topic and
> + many are shell shocked. Attempting to reignite the issue when its been
> + pretty well concluded that the 2nd amendment is in line with extropian
> + philosphy seems to be rather non productive and merely the sign of one who
> + wishes to be inflammatory.
> No problem, not interested in the 2nd amendment per se.
> Just pointing out that (a) one cannot overthrow a government which has nuclear
> capability with puny guns,
Nuclear weapons are not useful for oppressing individuals who occupy property contiguous to and within that of non-combatants and loyalists, which is why they are not used in anything like Vietnam or Korea. A government cannot enslave a person it has nuked. Their goal is enslavement.
> (b) the use of weapons in urban survival combat
> does not appear to be purpose of the 2nd amendment, and
On the contrary, it is one of the purposes, as the Constitution does not provide anyone with the right to be protected by the government from criminals. The government is only responsible for arresting those who have already violated a citizen's rights and lived to tell the tale. Government's job is to seek justice, to punish those who commit injustice, not to prevent injustice. The government is not empowered to be thought police.
> (c) the 2nd amendment
> would seem to refer to a militia and not to individuals as such.
No, all Constitutional scholars agree that when the US Constitution refers to 'people' it means individuals, not communities. That is why individuals have the right to free speech, association, religion, etc... A militia is made up of individuals who volunteer on a part time basis. It is not a standing army, indeed, standing armies of professional soldiers in peacetime are expressly prohibited. "Well Regulated" means well trained and organized in the dictionaries of the day when that document was written, not 'restricted by laws' as is the current popular mis-definition of the term (or as redefined by socialist/democrat doublespeak).
> And thus the peace broke out.
Peace breaks out when free men are allowed to defend themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would not describe being enslaved to an opressive government, which does not recognize that the origination of all power lies in the individual, as freedom, unless you live in an Orwellian nightmare and talk in doublespeak. "Slavery is freedom" "War is peace" "We need government to protect us from ourselves" Heil Clintler...
NOTE: Hillary "The Hanoi Jane of the 2nd Amendment" Clinton went down to Missouri to rally the party faithful to successfully fight a statewide referendum which would have allowed residents of that state to be able to apply for and receive concealed weapons, like the residents of 35 other states already can. Komrade Hillary needs to stay occupied with her communist health care conspiracy. This, I beleive, is the first time a First Lady can justly be classified as an enemy of the Constitution (just as her draft dodging husband is now the first US President to be fighting two completely different wars at the same time). If the referendum had passed, state residents could have looked forward to lower crime rates in the years ahead.