[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure
the citizen's ability to revolt

It isn't. Militias are for protecting the state against external threats.
But there is the implication that people might need to protect themselves
against their own government.


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.

Handguns are used in war.


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.

Ever seen the James Garner film "Tank"?