[Vanders9]

Hmm...the problem with "definitive" proclamations, like the constitution of the United States, is that the world doesn't stand still. Attitudes change, situations change, certainly technology advances. The US implicitly recognises this, otherwise there wouldnt be all those amendments to the "inalienable rights".

My point, and I submit it humbly for your consideration, is that a well armed militia may very well have been quite a credible military force a hundred plus years ago, but the increasing sophistication of modern armies - artillery, missiles, tanks etc...probably means that a company of good citizens and true armed with an assortment of dodgy firearms is going to be considerably less effective relatively than their forebears would be pitched against a regiment of redcoats or whatever. You could even argue it might be morally wrong to pitch them into such a conflict.

Have I explained that well? Its difficult to make it very clear.

[OneWingedShark]

A similar argument appeared in Starship Troopers (A near mindlessly-fun movie, but it had some points) when the Drill Instructor was asked a question along the lines of 'In modern warfare all it takes is the push of a button to end the battle. what good is learning how to throw a knife?' To which, the DI instructs the trainee to place his hand on the wall, and when he complies, throws his knife so as to pin the trainee's hand to the wall. A clear demonstration that it is not the technology, but the will to victory and the training to use what you _DO_ have that determines the final outcome.

Besides that, given the wholesale uprisal of the population, I would find it _very_ difficult to fire upon my fellow countrymen. That's why I thank God that the New Orleans aftermath went as bloodlessly as it did... Although, if fired upon I'm going to return fire.