[Long Cut]

Oh hey, it has crawled out from under its rock...to pat itself on the back!!

It must have gotten bored doing its homework tonight.

"I teach american government!"

Then at least try to teach it properly.

[Pitchfork]

OK, I'll post again. But I have to say the quality of your arguments has not improved!

1. A few respondents seem to support my contention by arguing that Tanks beat small arms.

This is one of my favorite points in this debate. The gun radicals will hilariously later make the claim that we ought to be able to own anti-tank weapons! Did you hear they are patrolling airport to make sure no shoulder mounted SAMs are targeted at passenger planes! More access to arms is NOT what the country needs.

2. A few of you resort of ad-hominem attacks

(yawn) Cyberspace makes my skin thick--keep thinking if you've got the horsepower.

3. One poster notes that US troops being inherently conservative would never obey an order to attack thier own populace.

Anyone recall Kent State?!

There were a few intelligent posts (or at least one) that correctly observes that the stability of our consitutional system depends not on the farcical proposition that we might take up arms against the government but instead on the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Of course this just supports my point that non-registration is unsupported by the 'protect democracy from tyranny by arms' rant.