Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county.
There are probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so
of the houses. (I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I
notice that sort of thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of
houses when people are home. Do you see how those two things are
connected?



So be it. There's a strong case to be made for scaring people into
leaving you alone. But when you perfume it and doll it up with lofty
abstractions, you lose sight of what it is you're saying. What you're
saying is, stay out, or I'll blow half your face off with a blast of
lead shot from this shotgun.


Which is why it's not much concern to "the government", or whatever anyone
wants to call the big brother monolith today.
In the end, if either law enforcement or the armed forces gets the call to
act, they won't be deterred. They'll just do it, and they have better
training, discipline and hardware. The only requirement will be a lawful
order so you see, what protects the publics right to bear arms isn't the
arms themselves. It is the belief in the rule of law and faith in those
giving the orders that counts. Absent those, your just ****ed. It is that
simple and is the reason I am astounded that more people aren't shouting
from the roof tops about those rights that have already been surrendered.
Maybe they are just stupid.

I know of no instance in recent times where an armed force of civilians in
the US has prevailed against the armed agencies of the government. Not the
SLA, not the Weather Underground, not at Waco, not Ruby Ridge, not anywhere
in my lifetime. Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim. That I
can buy.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com