At 7:28 PM -0500 7/21/00, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>For example, if the government really wanted to limit the sorts of
>firearms available and honor the 2nd Amendment they would have to do two
>things. The first is declare them a military weapon
The 1939 Supreme Court case specifically said that it was about
_military weapons_ which the Second was talking about. ("Unintended
Consequences," by John Ross, devotes many interesting pages to
telling this story in full, including how the Court was not told
about the role of short-barrelled shotguns in warfare and so accepted
restrictions on them. Much more is in the book.)
>and then ban them
>completely from the US. Not even the police or the military within the
>boundaries would be able to hold or operate such equipment.
This is one of those non sequitors which cause me to question your
grasp on reality. If nuclear weapons are owned by the military but
most certainly not by civilians, what makes you think this above
paragraph is even remotely plausible?
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
