[Rhodes22-list] The compromised value of the second amendment

[Robert Skinner]

Brad, I think you may be overstating the value of the
second amendment in warding off an oppressive government.

The restrictions placed on private ownership of weapons
in the early 1900s - during the first moral war (alcohol
prohibition) - ensured that the law-abiding citizen
would not have easy access to firepower equal to the
law enforcement community.

Then in 1941, Ainsley precipitated the second moral war
(drug prohibition) and further restrictions were added,
as well as no-knock and other encroachments on civil
rights in the prosecution of the holy war.

The current state of affairs has the law-abiding (not
the criminal) completely at the mercy of black and blue
shirted SWAT teams.  If your house is invaded without
warning, and you shoot the intruder(s), you will die
in a hail of automatic weapons fire.

Lesson - if there is one intruder, kill him inside your
house fast.  Show no mercy - his/her lawyers certainly
won't if the criminal is injured, but left alive.

If there are several intruders, make sure that all are
dead fast.  A frag grenade would be useful in
balancing the odds.  But they are illegal.  You die,
citizen.

In the light of these developments, one of the main
purposes of the second amendment (to prevent a
dictatorship from gaining and holding power) is
effectively nullified.

Sorry, Brad.  The second amendment is effectively dead,
despite the DC decision.

/Robert
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Haslett wrote:
> ... Some one asked me a few weeks ago if I thought China
> would ever change their form of government and I said NO, the citizens
> don't own guns.  Never underestimate the value of the Second
> Amendment.