Originally Posted by Swervin Cracka

We can post the entire syllabus if you wish but it does not change the decision in the case. The wording states precisely that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the lawful protection and in the defense of self, family and property.


Nobody really needs a .50 caliber Barret rifle to deter theives, but it works. We don't need military style, high capacity rifles either. They serve no purpose at all in the home, the sport of shooting, or in hunting game for food. These are not facts, they are simply my opinions on those weapons, other may differ. Along those same lines, we don't really need 200 channels of television when 2 or 3 will do just fine, right? We don't need anything at all, aside the most basic necessities for survival, but then we're supposed to be a bit more civilized than monkeys, right?

The problem is that a ban on any single type of weapon is legal precedent for panty waisted knuckleheads to use as fodder for bans on anything else that they're afraid of, or don't understand. People that don't want the personal responsibility that comes with liberty and freedom can move to France if they wish.

My point is that our rights, and freedom to exercise those rights, made this country what is once was, and could be again. If we continue to cower in fear, plant our heads in the sands of ignorance, and allow the few to impose their will upon the many we will most certainly cease to be citizens and become subjects of the same iron fisted oppression that sparked the beginning of the revolution.

So in closing this argument, your statement that the second ammendment does not provide an absolute right to bear arms is false. You may wish for the opposite to be true but, wishes aren't reality.



Larry