Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I agree mostly.at the time it was penned, yes, the latter reason was still valid.
nowadays, not so much.
back then, everyone pretty much had the same "arms". bayonets, cannon balls, muskets, rickety wooden ships, and the like. now, we have nuclear bombs, neutron bombs, chemical warfare, fully automatic machine guns, panzer tanks, and so much more.
if the need ever arises to overthrow a tyrant, no one is going to bother to do so in a constitutional fashion. it's not constitutional for citizens to own atomic bombs, but we'd get them from some eastern bloc shit hole if the need arose.
prodigaysun* would have a conniption if he ever heard sotomayor's take on the second. we'll spare him for now.
*this satisfies the need for a gay joke
IF a dictator/king/monarch or whatever came to be in power (or a situation where citizens defended themselves from annihalation/mass imprisonment) they would use the tanks, planes, bombs and guns against us.
Nukes not so much.. although I heard there is a new bomb that is as powerful as a nuke but produces no radiation.