Strider wrote:

I'm sure that's true. In fact, the restraint demonstrated by US
troops under fire in Iraq seems to suggest that our military is often
just the opposite of aggressive or trigger-happy. But if civilians
fired on the military, as at Lexington, MA in 1775, the legality of the
situation might not be quite as pleasant as your average gun-toting
rebel would hope. David Koresh and company learned that lesson. And,
in a sort of slow-motion, strung out way, so did Timothy McVeigh. Those
situations didn't include military troops in the literal sense of that
term; but they still represent examples of how/why the government is
never going to be outgunned.

KG


You must be joking.

Two guys in a assault Capri, with one rifle between them, just about
shut down Washington, DC.

Just let your imagination expand out of the envelope a bit and imagine
what 50 such teams might do.


It's interesting what sentiments can do to our outlook on things. If
law enforcement officials take precautions to protect against "rebels"
and the potential for danger, that's a rebel victory almost as good as
actually shutting down a national capital. But when the government
forces actually kill or imprison some of those same rebels, it's not a
victory for the government, or a serious loss for the rebel cause, since
there are lots more rebels where those came from.

If you were a chess player, I suspect you'd sacrifice your queen to
capture one of my pawns, and then claim that you'd won a great victory
by hurting me and teaching me a lesson. Sebsequent moves might
demonstrate otherwise.

KG