Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Sout said: Well, if it's only to defend firearms, then I am opposed to
your Model. It
is to narrow, to limited, and even within it's protection allows for
infringements and violations by restricting size, type, nature, use and
applicablity for a task. It would be like saying that the only thing
the 1st
Amendment needs to defend is single stage manual presses since any
sort would be unnecessary for civilian print jobs, and when technology
advanced to the point that such presses were obsolete you would be left
stuck with utterly unsuitable equipement because someone else decided
would be adequate for all time.

I reply: Actually, it wouldn't be like that at all.

No, it's exactly like that unless you are going to tell me that you are
revising your Model.

The SAW is not
intended for individual protection.

So our defense should be limited to one on one confrontations with

I say again, the SAW is not intended for protection of the individual--
and your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not other collective rights you may or
may not have. Maybe if you're playing a video game you'll pick the SAW
as your weapon of choice for personal self-defense. But practically
speaking, there's a good reason the vast majority of combat troops are
issued some variant of the M-16.

Do you have a right to put a SAW in every window to defend your home?
I'm open to discuss it. But I see now, just in responding to this
post, that there is a need to differentiate the right to keep and bear
arms for home defense versus the right to keep and bear arms for
personal protection in public. I also think that it;s important to
draw the lines somewhere. Should you be able to carry that SAW around
on the street? How about a .50 cal HMG in the bed of your pickup?
There are some lines that need to be drawn. I'm just looking for the
reasoanbleness behind the drawing of the lines.

You might want to ask Millions killed by their own governments in the last
century if their defense should be limited to just minor criminals???

Further I though we were a nation of rights? IOW we have rights to do
anything and everything until and unless someone can advance clear reason
why we can't.
It is a squad-level light support
weapon. The same goes with the M203. And the LAAWS rocket. However,
the M16 IS intended for individual protection-- it is the standard long
gun used by the U.S. military. If technology advances to the point
where the U.S. military uses some other standard issued long gun for
the troops, then you'd have a good point.

So I can protect myself against individuals....but if they have more than
that or are more numerious, then my right ends because?

You can protect yourself quite well against several hostiles with a
weapon such as the M-16. In fact, squad support weapons are at a
significant disadvantage against multiple hostiles except in certain
circumstances-- fixed positions with a clear field of fire where the
hostiles will have limited access for example.

I am saying that my right to defend my own life is equivalent to the
soldier's right to defend themselves individually.

Then ask the MILLIONS killed by their governments if individual defense
against individuals is enough.

My commentas are not intended to proscribe a collective right of the
peole (or some of the people) to join together for mutual self-defense.

Further I wasn't aware that our rights were limited by what YOU consider
necessary and proper.

The protection of your rights is limited by what policies your "elected
representatives" put into place. My opinion is only one of many that
may-- or may not-- influence those elected representatives.