On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:28:32 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Oh wait, you're talking about the fourth, not the second. Well then,
that's _completely_ different. I mean, it's not like the second
guarantees the continued existance of the fourth or anything...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

This again, Ed?

Evasion noted.

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

No, I don't, and I seriously doubt if you do either, Dave. Why don't you
explain it to us? Tell us about how many alliga...er, Democrats, you've kept
away by threatening them with your guns.

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

Clearer now?

Hey, a guy threatened me with a gun just two years ago. He was a
medical-technician student, but it turned out he didn't have a gun. He spent
a half day with his lawyer in the local cop shop anyway, though.

Good. Lucky he didn't end up dead. And you still don't get it.