27 May 06 08:01, Philip Lozier wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>>>> Hmmmm, that makes for a good case for the 'armed citizen'...

 PL>>> A very good case.  I find that right to be armed amongst the
 PL>>> highest of our rights.

 RW>> Without the 2nd amendment, the rest would have been gone a long
 RW>> time ago.

 PL> Even with it, some are still vanishing.

The BORs and it's amendment count is the same as it was right after the
last amendment. None have vanished.

 PL>>>   They continuously try to take steps to remove that. Good luck...
 PL>>> "cold dead fingers" and all that.

 RW>> Same here.

 PL>>> They can -try- to -disarm- this citizen... they'll need a SWAT team
 PL>>> though.

 RW>> BATFE says otherwise...don't be surprised if they wake you in the
 RW>> middle
 RW>> of the night.

 PL> This -is- a concern.  All my eggs are not in one basket though.

There was an instance of that in San Diego a few years ago. The resident
used a firearm and defended his family and home, only to be shot down by
BATF agents. Fortunately, he lived thorugh it and, since the BATF was
going by a tip from an informer who got the wrong house, he's now a very
rich man.

 PL>>> If the citizens are disarmed, then only the cops and criminals will
 PL>>> have weapons... both are of equal threat and danger these days.

 RW>> Yeup...although very peacable around here, I've seen what you're
 RW>> talking
 RW>> about in the big city.

 PL> This isn't a -big- city, but the cops here can definately be out of
 PL> control sometimes.

Ya know, I see an awful lot of 'police action' that gets reported daily in
the local rag, but I've never seen anyone pulled over...odd that.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000