[dcwusmc]

I said that it was my opinion... because I once was nuclear, biological and chemical warfare defense chief for a Marine helicopter squadron and I am all too aware of what these things can do... and, while nukes might have some utility in really HEAVY construction/demolition, the other two have no practical utility and are too dangerous to keep safely. Even the destruction of these weapons has posed some SERIOUS problems for the military in being able to do so SAFELY.

[Tymesup]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

After reading some of the posts on this thread, the consensus seemed to be, Rudy is wrong, the Second Amendment says we are allowed to have guns. However, on other threads, the consensus seemed to be, WMDs are wrong, they are not guaranteed by the Second. It seems to me there is a difference in degree, not in kind, between guns and WMDs. It is clear that guns will not stop the government if they are up to no good (Waco, for example).

I don't know where the line, if any, should be drawn.

Freegards