Bc,

As military advisor to bartcop.com, I feel that there is a need to send a
response to you and Asst. EIBU Prof. Peter "rachael@wnonline.net" Sliman.

In his letter, the good prof discusses the virtue of an armed citizenry as a safeguard against
tyranny and oppression of government. The guns = freedom equation was very quaint.
Setting aside the writings of Madison and  Hamilton in the Federalist Papers (see Nos. 8 and 29)
regarding the topic, there are some practical and pragmatic arguments that should be aired.

First, I'd like to point out that when the Brown Bess muzzle loading musket
was the ultimate small arms systems of the revolutionary war. In this case
an armed populace could indeed compete on a reasonably even playing field.

Contrast that with today's weapons system. Most modern military/paramilitary forces
are armed with extremely capable automatic weapons system. These weapons tend to
be very reliable, light weight and accurate. For example the H&K MP-5 weighs slightly
over 2.5 kilos and is capable of emptying it's 30 9mm rounds in less than 2 seconds.
Contrast that with the venerable Winchester Model 70. It weighs well over 3.5 kilos and
is capable of delivering 3 shots in 2 seconds.  Now seriously, who's going to win that battle?

Second, there is the training aspect of the situation. In the revolution, military forces were
trained to fight in compact formations in order to generate enough firepower to actually
cause enough casualties to frighten their enemy. The carnage was simply trivial compared
to the capabilities of a modern fighting force.

As an example of the capabilities of a modern fighting force, trained specifically to deal with
the rigors of modern fighting, lets look at Mogadishu, Somalia. A civilian force of thousands,
armed with modern automatic weapons (AK-47/74s) and grenade launchers (RPG-7s)
took on an incompetently lead force of 120 US Rangers supported by a handful of  Delta
commandos. At the end of a days fight, the trained force of less than 150 men killed or
wounded an estimated 7,000 (our number) to 15,000 (their number) of the enemy at a
loss of 17 friendly KIAs and around 80 WIA.

Seriously now, how long do you think it would take a squad of soldiers to take out a bunch
of hopped up hicks with hunting rifles. The good professors formula is actually ...

        Firearms in the hands of a rabble + armed and trained enemy = dead rabble.

The best that the citizen army could hope for is a guerilla action consisting of assassination
and ambush. Good luck winning a war that way.

The bottom line, the idea that the second amendment was intended to allow an armed citizenry
to safeguard itself against tyranny is pure bullshit.  The amendment guaranteed the states, in possession
of a their own militia (made up of citizen SOLDIERS), capable of being armed with modern weapons
and organized into a military force, would safeguard it's citizens.

The point bc makes is also one that needs to be assessed. His point regarding home defense is well taken.
Although killing an intruder can be argued as excess force, the desire to safeguard one's family is of
paramount importance. However, the choice of weapons is critical.

I believe BC's choice of weapons is the Glock Model 20. This is a very capable weapon in the hands
of an expert. However, for the general population, I'd recommend the Winchester Model 1300 Defender
with the pistol grip option. The advantage of the pump action shot gun is ease of use, reliability and when
you fire down the hallway, the entire target area will be saturated with shot as opposed to 1 to 15 10mm
rounds from the Glock.

Also, the "chunk-chunk" sound of a round being chambered by the pump is enough to send any would be
intruder into panicked flight. Finally, it is unlikely that the shotgun rounds will penetrate an exterior wall of
yours and your neighbors house, and lodge in the cranium of that neighbor while they rest peacefully in their bed.
This cannot be said for the Glock.

The bottom line on firearms is that they are here to stay. The banning of all weapons is simply not possible
in a country as crazy as ours. What we, the liberal types, need to do is reassure the gun nuts (they are, by
definition a paranoid and insecure lot) that we are not going to take their guns away from them. Once a level
of trust is secured, we can work together to insure that the guns are used in a safe and legal manner by ....

        1) establishing training programs for safe operations
        2) insuring safe ammunition and gun storage practices are instituted
        3) license gun owners (not the guns) to insure that criminals don't have ready access to weapons,
        4) and finally, banning at the point of manufacture/import weapons (the "Streetsweeper" for example),
            accessories (night scopes, Kevlar vests, etc.), and, in particular, ammunition (Teflon coated, mercury
            core for example) which have no practical hunting or sporting use.

There is common ground if one chooses to look for it.

DAF