In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government.

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago?

Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have
them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the
rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these
rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Please
tell me how they make sense in today's society?

They make as much sense now as they ever have.

Like or not, the government
of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
mind.

Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?