James writes:

> The devil always comes grabbed in sophistication and cloaked
>  in reasonableness.  It was always thus and always shall be.
>  The prevention of denial of weapons to the citizens of the USA
>  was always the primary concern of the draughters of the 2nd
>  amendment to the US constitution.  Well regulated or ordered
>  refers to behaviour, not control by the state.  That is an
>  interpretation of the word regulation that post-dates the civil
>  war, when the influence of the US federal government began
>  its so-far unceasing extensions of its powers.
>
>  What is really going on with this debate is an unwillingness of
>  the current generation to accept that the framers of the US
>  constitution really meant what they wrote.  That having
>  successfully overthrown one tyranny they had no intention of
>  allowing another to arise and take its place.  Even a cursory
>  review of the federalist papers and other contemporary
>  documents makes it clear that there is no question that these
>  people feared such an occurrence more than any other threat,
>  and deemed it far more likely.

[snip]

>  In short, the world does not advance on the backs of
>  reasonable men.  It only moves forward kicking, and
>  screaming, and resisting; by the implacable advance of
>  unreasonable men.  If something proposed by a powerful
>  organization seems reasonable to right thinking people, then it
>  is probably something to be greatly feared.

With all due respect, that's the biggest pile of horse crap I've ever read.

















Damn, James. I see what you mean. This being unreasonable stuff is kind of
fun. It certainly saves a lot of typing, and best of all, it doesn't require
much thinking :-).

While I realize you didn't truly mean what your words suggest, a webpage that
exudes the same spirit -- indeed one of thousands on the web -- can be found
at:

     http://xld.com/public/wwwf/wwwf004.htm

and who better to lead off with the first quote than Oliver Cromwell,
England's only dictator [although to be fair and "reasonable," the
Encyclopedia Britannica writes this of Cromwell: "Modern critics are more
discriminating. His belief in God's providence is analyzed in psychological
terms. Marxists blame him for betraying the cause of revolution by
suppressing the radical movement in the army and resisting the policy of the
Levellers. On the whole, he is regarded only in a very limited sense as a
dictator, but rather as a patriotic ruler who restored political stability
after the civil wars and contributed to the evolution of constitutional
government and religious toleration."]

On the subject of militias, a much more accurate (and unfortunately
"reasonable") history of the Militias in American History can be found at:

     http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm

Wirt