[MD] blackwater

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Woods]
Does that mean you give up?  I don't know what your trying to say.

[Arlo]
I'm saying that if a foreign army invaded the US, and our own army 
was not able to stop them, then a gaggle of hunters with deer rifles 
and handguns ain't doing gonna do a damn thing. And if our own army 
turned on the citizens of this country, our only hope is the help of 
a foreign army, as that same gaggle ain't stopping our army.

In either event, wielding a handgun or a .30-06 will only sure your 
rapid and speedy demise, something which will cost the invading army 
about 3 cents for the ammo it took to gun you down. As such, we'd 
need to find other means of resistance.

But my point was simply that its lunacy to suggest that the "right to 
bear arms" is based on our belief that an organized cadre of hunters 
will protect our liberties from threats, domestic or foreign. Maybe 
at the time of the constitution was written such a belief was 
well-founded. Today, our right to bear arms enables hunting 
(sustinence), sport (target shoots, e.g.) and as a first-wave of 
defense against criminals who attack us or our family. That's good 
enough for me. (By the way, Ian, I know you did not suggest this, you 
referred to its lunacy as well, but this argument continues to be vocalized).

As for Blackwater, I oppose the idea of privatized military 
organizations. If something is worth doing militarily, its worth 
funding our legitimate army to do so. If they need more money, then 
raise taxes to pay for it. Private organizations with this sort of 
power are too open to corruption and abuse. The US Army ultimately 
answers to the American people, and that is how it should be.