>   ak>> If the army use tanks, bombers, satellite, drones, spying
 >   ak>> equipment where can buy it? If you catch a tank it will be
 >   ak>> destroyed by a bomber withing minutes.

 >   TR> The cops in this country have military vehicles of sorts, even
 >   TR> armored personnel carriers.

 > I don't doubt that the cops are equipped very well. But we talk about
 > common people's "right to keep and bear arms ... to keep an armed 
 > citizenry able to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government."
 
What's wrong with that? Does the thought of Americans being armed and able
to resist a tyrant who tries to impose a dictatorial government on us 
upset your view of how *you* think we should live?

Some people lived on their knees before dictatorships and repression of 
free thought for so long, and are so used to living that way, they think
Americans should want to live that way as well. And the fact that we possess
the means of preventing an out and out dictator establishing a hold over
us seems to upset the rest of the world. 

Gee....that's too bad!   
 
 >   TR> Trouble is... pretty much all those who whine about ordinary
 >   TR> Americans owning their own guns, standing at a microphone
 >   TR> thundering against the Second Amendment, are usually surrounded by
 >   TR> plain clothes body guards who are armed to the teeth!
  
 > The only hope is that they follow their promises given during the 
 > election campaign. They could demand gun restriction on behalf their
 > electorate only. So democracy must show itself.
 
We aren't a `democracy'. We are a `democratic republic'. 
 
 >   TR>>> Convicted felons, some misdemeanor convictions, and those who
 >   TR>>> have been in mental institutions are usually caught in a
 >   TR>>> background check for a firearm purchase.

 >   ak>> If a person hasn't been in a mental hospital during his life it
 >   ak>> doesn't mean he is healthy mentally. That is the way how nutcases
 >   ak>> acquire submachine guns.

 >   TR> So what?

 > The easier is a buying procedure the more chances for crazy persons to 
 > get armed. So, a heavy restriction is not a bad idea. After all a
 > restriction is not a prohibition.
 

 >   TR> Islamic fanatics `go off' with swords and knives all the time,
 >   TR> slashing and stabbing people. I'd prefer having a. 44 special in my
 >   TR> pocket than a pocket knife in that scenario.

 > They can think in this way also.

 > <skipped>
 >   TR> Not a single teacher was armed and able to engage a gunman who was
 >   TR> `harming the children'.

 >   TR> At Sandy Hook even the security guard was `un'armed! And the
 >   TR> children died!
  
 > I think that the probability that a teacher will kill his students in
 > temper is higher than the probability he will defend them from a 
 > terrorist.  A teacher should be unarmed, as a researcher who is going 
 > to study savages in the jungle. More chances for negotiations. 
 
To my knowledge no teacher has ever gone off in a school and slaughtered
a classroom full of students. Most all teachers in this country now are
leftist democrats who teach `government is the one and all', and that living
on one's knees is a way of life!

Back when I went to school pretty well all the male teachers were WWII or
Korean War veterans, and had a good working knowledge of our Constitution.
And the woman teachers were either married to, or a widow of, a WWII vet
or Korean War vet, and taught the value of appreciating our freedoms.

If you are a foreigner and live in a foreign country, please stay there and
continue to be `controlled' by whatever dictator who rules you. We don't 
need you here. We already have enough leftist democrats who want to disarm
the general public, control us in every aspect of our lives, and micromanage
our existence. We don't need another one.
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
 * Origin: Telnet://valhalla.synchro.net - Richmond, Virginia (1:275/93)