"Glenn" <ozarkheart@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:IvgQa.52452$N7.6559@sccrnsc03...
>
 > This is a point the anti-gunners love because it might cause a rift in
the
> ranks.  And it is a difficult point to deal with.   I can see your side
> quite well.  But a classical definition of arms would be those that are
> routinely carried by a soldier and that he would use to defend himself.

Which includes sidearms (handguns) and grenades.

>A crew served weapon does not fall into that category:  F-16's, tanks, etc,
> could be considered "arms" in the broadest sense of the word.

I beg to differ. F-16s ARE what their pilots use to defend themselves. Tanks
afe what tank crews use to defend themselves. Crew served weapons are what
the weapons crews use to defend themselves.


> Neither would a tactical nuke.

"Tactical nukes" are deterents. No one, currently, is dumb enough to use
them.
>
> Now the anti-gunners love this.  Their logic:  See, you **do** agree with
> 'gun control' becuse you agree that the average person should not be
allowed
> to own a nuke.
>
> Common sense eludes them.

Common sense should tell ANYONE that "nukes" are not available at the local
sporting goods store. Bin Laden had tens of millions of dollars to spend and
openly expressed a desire to buy nukes, but he could not get ONE. Saddam
Hussein had BILLIONS of US dollars to spend, but he could not buy ONE.

Common sense should tell ANYONME that you can't just "whip up" a nuke in
your basement workshop. They're HARD TO MAKE.

There has NEVER been a successful purchase oof a nuke, or a successful
building of a nuke by a terrorist organization. However, I don't doubt that
men have died of radiation poisoning in the attempt.

-*MORT*-