Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
It would still be much much harder to subjucate an armed population then an unarmed one.
Besides, in an oversimplified statement, a ragtag bunch of yokels took out one of the great military powers in the world. There was a great disparity.
Using the judicial system to 'reinterpret' the Constitution undermines all our freedom - and is tyranny.
Pete
|
It seems to me that eleven fully armed states tried to fight the Federal government 150 years ago. How'd that work out?
I think everyone (probably) agrees that the Constitution allows citizens to own muskets, yet allows the regulation or prohibition of fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers or personal nuclear arsenals. The question is where along this continuum you draw the line.