[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The weird phrasing is probably the outcome of the British having taken
weapons from Americans so they couldn't fight back. As militia members
usually supplied their own weapons...

Both "sides" in this issue are wrong. I've never seen such a lack of common
sense.

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure the
citizen's ability to revolt, then in fact it should cover the weapons of
war only. That means handguns probably wouldn't be protected, but private
ownership of nuclear weapons would be.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind owning a tank myself. Nobody gives you a parking
ticket in a tank. You can park anywhere you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."