Replies

Who was talking about WMDs?

I was talking about the best weaponry carried by footsoldiers.

And the second amendment is not about "defense" (and a machine gun is quite good at that, incidentally) it is about doing battle with an oppressive government.

Note that the colonials had the right to keep and bear warships, poison, cannon, and bombs.

Also note that government has no powers that were not granted by (and therefor held by) the people. That means that the only reason that our military has tanks, nukes, and WMDs is because we had that right, and granted it to them.

But the fact is, the very closest analog to the colonial rifles that were foremost in the minds of the framers is today's Colt 223 M4. Which is EXACTLY the banned weapon that this story is about.

WMDs were raised only to point out "arms" that most people would agree should not be in private hands. We surely didn't want them in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Now, perhaps you disagree, and there are no limits whatsover as to what you have the right to possess. If so, there is no gray area to worry about. But if there ARE some arms that no citizen should possess, then we have to figure out where that dividing line is.

That's why I raised it.