[Pitchfork]

Let me make one more observation about quotes:

Looking at the lists that have been provided you will note that many come from newspaper editorials and floor debates in Congress and in State Houses. The fact that one side was ARGUING the particular position that citizens should be free to bear arms presupposes that there was opposition (however large is an empirical question) which DISAGREED with the statements being made. How can we then make the conceptual leap to say: Given the presence of these ARGUMENTS it is clear that the founding fathers and the whole of the American population supported this interpretation of the Second Ammendment. Clearly if this were the case THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ARGUMENT!!!

The second ammendment was as contested and controvertial a point then as it is today. Of course the controversy typically centered on the need for a 'well regulated' milita instead of, or as a check on, a federal army.

Which brings me back to the original point of my post:
Does the presence of a substantial armed portion of the Iraqi population disprove the notion that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny?
Federalist 49 seems to argue that parity in equipment and training would be required

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms"

Madison argues that Arms alone would be insufficient
"...it is not certain, that with this aid alone [arms] they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

[Noumenon]

Spare me your Jesuitry. We'll settle this and many other questions in the next American Civil War. Look in the mirror for one of its proximate causes. In your last moments, you may even get some idea of how it feels to be on the wrong side of the oldest conflict in the history of human civilization.

[spunkets]

"The second ammendment was as contested and controvertial a point then as it is today. Of course the controversy typically centered on the need for a 'well regulated' milita instead of, or as a check on, a federal army.

The only controversial part was the how the right should not and did not apply to slaves and the freed slaves after the war. That's because hte only reason for gun control and registration is total control of those who might rebel.

" Which brings me back to the original point of my post: Does the presence of a substantial armed portion of the Iraqi population disprove the notion that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny?"

Seems you not only ignored the truth, but you continue to ignore it and even promote the falsehood that Iraqi citizens are armed. They are not. Not only are they w/o ammo, but house to house searches have been going on for several weeks now to confiscate any arms in the hands of those who show no great loyalty to sodom. Those stuck in his army that have been issued guns, with a small allotment of ammo, are overseen by sodom's butt boy guard. They will kill anyone who attempts surrender, or fails to effectively confront the allies intent on liberating them from sodom's grasp.

[spunkets]

"that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Madison did not think this out very well. DeTocqueville did. He noted that the driving force behind the electorate would eventually be dominated by those that are in effect raiding the public treasury. IOWs the people would soon learn how to rob folks and force their will with the power of a vote. A vote backed by the Federal Army. Madison and the other founders, noted only that in order for the Constitution, including those of the states required a moral people to sustain justice.

Gun grabbers are those that are afraid of the people holding their own arms. Their goal is to have them disarmed, not because thay are a threat to the peace, but are a threat to the reign of injustice the grabbers desire.