I had a reply written but decided against posting it. If interested let me know and we'll take it off-list. If not then good luck to you sir. On 7/9/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
It is apparent that you never had to take an oath to defend this country, which is okay, so I doubt you or Erik would understand the part of the oath that say's: "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That portion is very powerful and remains as valid today as it did when it was written.
Contrarty to popular belief, it isn't a foreign enemy that anyone is concerned about. It is the "domestic enemy" that the personal ownership of firearms is meant to address. The rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is more about "homeland" defense as it is anything else. So you see, the validity of the "old argument" that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free, is still valid.
FWIW, the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to keeps arms for hunting. The majority of politicians think it is, but can we expect them to know any better? ;)