"Tim Carter" wrote in message
...



I've never needed an uzi to kill pheasants, nor for any hunting for that
matter, but that's not the point of the Second Amendment, is it Kenny? In
fact, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't guarantee my right to hunt
of
fish. But it does guarantee me my right to protect myself from a
tyrannical
government, and it does allow me to be 'well-armed'. Luckily, we've not
yet
needed to actually express this right, regardless of what you whackos on
the
Right thought about Clinton and what you other whackos on the Left think
about Bush. Neither could be considered 'tyrannical'; but simply our
young
country has been somewhat of a historical anomaly, hasn't it? We could
easily get into the definition of 'well-armed' if you like as well, but I
suspect that even a fully automatic rifle is kinda like bringing a knife
to
a gun fight when compared to the military's access to Abrams tanks, A10's,
nuclear missiles, and the like.

You know, Kenny, I've not seen much posted from you but asshole comments
to
people and OT posts. Clearly your only value to this group is that of
functioning as the Village Idiot.


I wasn't aware that any legal body, at any level, has managed to determine
precisely what the 2nd amendment intended. And for that matter, I'm quite
certain the words "well-armed" are not in there. So don't be so quick to
brush off the validity of the debate.

--riverman