[TLI]

Tolerable at best I suppose but there was one section that is just plane wrong.

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today's infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self-defense or other lawful purposes.

HA! This guy obviously has not been to the rage and looked around. He DANG sure has not done that at a range here in Texas. The usual “array” found there on an ordinary weekend would make Sara and Diane faint on the spot.

[xmission]

HA! This guy obviously has not been to the rage and looked around. He DANG sure has not done that at a range here in Texas. The usual “array” found there on an ordinary weekend would make Sara and Diane faint on the spot.

Not only has he not been around, he's overlooked the fact that many of us here would own the M16 if it were available to us. I'd even bet that more would be owned privately, than by the government...

[William Tell]

TLI said: The usual “array” found there on an ordinary weekend would make Sara and Diane faint on the spot."

The author also makes too much of the case that civilians today don't own arms as lethal as the military. The reason is simple; because the Supreme Court has refused to review the laws which prohibit the people from having such arms.

I, for one, started buying arms when I realized that the liberals had become hell-bent on disarming me. If the opportunity arises to buy even more lethal arms in the future, I will sell some of my retirement funds to do so.