CompuServe Messages

Whoa, not so fast. You need to look again at my original post. The difference is that "arms" capable of being "born" are protected by the Constitution. It is quite a stretch to equate "assault weapons" with tanks, don't you think? Particularly since the new sale of fully-automatic weapons was banned two or three years ago? >The fact is, you can legally arm yourself to the teeth, you just have a >*slightly* limited choice of what weapons to use. Any of the legal >weapons will do the job of protecting yourself however…and after all, >isn't that your main point? Two points here- One, it depends on where you live, doesn't it? If I lived in D.C., I couldn't be armed at all. The other is that either the Constitution is either worth the paper it's printed on or it's not. When you allow the plain language of the Constitution to be subverted because you think, in one particular case, that it's a good idea, you have subverted the entire document. That was my point to Ron, and I stick by it. THAT'S my point, that regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, it's unconstitutional to do so. I happen to think it's a bad idea, but it doesn't make any difference. -Karl