> >   TR>>> American citizens the right to keep and bear arms was to keep an
 > >   TR>>> armed citizenry able to resist and overthrow a tyrannical
 > >   TR>>> government.

 > >   ak>> Small arms is useless for that purpose.
 > >   TR> What makes you think all we've got is `small arms'?
  
 > > If the army use tanks, bombers, satellite, drones, spying equipment 
 > > where can buy it? If you catch a tank it will be destroyed by a bomber
 > > withing minutes.
 
Not to mention the military members being `family' of those the government
would want to be suppressing. A look at the expressions on the nation's
military commanders faces as Hussein delivered his `state of his own self'
address the other night pretty much says it; a tyrant of his stripe would
have little control over the nation's military should the citizenry at large
start a popular revolt to restore the full governance of our Constitution
as it was intended by the Founders. Much of what Hussein boasted of in a
military `accomplishment' vein got scornful, `what has he been smoking'
looks from the military leaders.

 
 > Tanks and bombers are pretty much useless in an urban environment - unless
 > the government wants to alienate the rest of the people.  They're pretty
 > much useless in jungles and forests, too.  We should have learned that in
 > Vietnam and you should have learn ed it in Afghanistan.
 
The APC's of the armored Cav units did pretty good in the highlands and on
roads. I saw M1 tanks there, but no huge armored units like in WWII. Mostly
it would be two or three M1's securing a bridge complex, or for patrolling
Highway 1 in hot spots that didn't involve heavy natural cover or many
villages. Very rarely saw more than a few I one place. Armored divisions
were there, but actual `tank' battles didn't happen.

 > Small arms, however, are very useful in such an environment.  So are knives
 > and garrots.  
 
Well-aimed gallon containers with gasoline in them are perfect for taking out
an APC loaded with troops. A 30 06 round from 400 yards does a perfect job
as well. Most American hunters are well up on their shooting skills with a
rifle.  
  
 > > If a person hasn't been in a mental hospital during his life it doesn't
 > > mean he is healthy mentally. That is the way how nutcases acquire
 > > submachine guns.
 
 > Submachine guns and "assault rifles" are just bullet hoses.  They are
 > notoriously inaccurate. 

Were I to have a choice of weapon I'd take the M14 over the M16 or anything
they've got along those lines now-a-days. 
The M-14 I had in my Vietnam unit had a selector switch for semi or full
automatic. We went to a range on post at Chu Lai regularly with our weapons,
and I felt comfortable with what I had. 
 
 > An experienced shooter can do far more damage -
 > from a much greater distance - with a scoped big game rifle, and have
 > little "collateral damage."

Open sights with a `peep-sight-front-blade' system isn't too shabby, either.
On the range in Basic I could knock down silhouette targets at 350 with an
M-14 lying in a prone position. 

 > >   TR> The vast majority of people this president is referring to when he
 > >   TR> accuses us of `clinging to God and our guns' are just as
 > >   TR> responsible and experienced with firearms as I try to be.

 > > But anyway, allowing school teachers to have guns is a bad idea. ;=)
  
 > A century and a half ago in this country it was quite common for students -
 > ages 10 to 13 - in rural schools to carry pistols to and from school.  Yet
 > there was none of the mayhem then that there is now
 
A mass shooting at a school would have been unheard of. Not even a danger.
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
 * Origin: Telnet://valhalla.synchro.net - Richmond, Virginia (1:275/93)