>And from a legal professional's point of
>view, the 2d A doesn't guarantee a private citizen's right to bear arms
>outside the context of the National Guard. --jks
>From a believer's point of view you gotta have the arms so that you _can_
organize a national guard (as opposed to _the_ National Guard, which is
part and parcel of the same military that the BOR attempts to set limits
upon.)
I'm not saying that the 2A isn't subject to abuse. The gov't keeps permitting the flow of arms to an underclass of society and permits (some say provides them with) various sources of contraband. This fosters the conditions that create one of the sources of violence that gun control advocates abhor. It also creates a class of trained urban warrior at _no_ cost to the government. Prison further enhances this process, but at some cost. Still substantially less than training and maintaining an urban warrior military force legally. When the time is right the gov't may simply declare drugs legal, and offer this class of warriors positions in the military to sweep down on the ungovernable elements of the country (Detroit vs Michigan). Those warriors have no allegiance to the constitution and will form an able force to put against _any_ guerrilla activity.
Re-read or reconsider Herbert's _Dune_ from that perspective. He was, after all, a pensioned, if not totally retired naval intelligence officer.