[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"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.

Yes. This is what happens when you let a bunch of revolutionaries who have
come to distrust government turn around and design a government. You get a
government with a lot of built-in limitations, if they do it right anyway.
The French sadly didn't manage to do it right. They're on what, their
fifth republic now?

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.

They issue them to officers to make them think they can actually do
something against the enemy. If they actually fire them, they get a
Bronze Star, unless they fire them at themselves.

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"?

I have not, but anything with James Garner is probably worth watching.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."