On 8 Dec 2003 13:30:15 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Now could you please explain exactly why your view of the
BOR is a single, unitary amemdment - the second, of
course. And you will move heaven and earth to see to
it that the second is upheld verbatim, and stamp and
holler if anyone who supports it is denigrated.

Cites? We have the ACLU watching over the rest of them (their ignoring
the 2nd is notable btw)

A CITE? I don't need a cite for my opinion. This is
what you look like, to me.

Your opinion is noted..and a reminder that Opinions are like
assholes..etc etc is directed your way.

There is NO way to prevent terrorism, or acts of terrorism, without
stepping on peoples toes, or their Rights. Period. Full stop, end
program.

This is what ashcroft would have you believe. I had hoped you
were wiser than that. If you are willing to destroy the
constitition to save it, then I guess this part of the discussion
comes to a close.

Jim

Im still waiting for your suggestions on how the situation could have
been handled differently, and how you would handle it now.

Its obvious then that you are unable to provide any? Just kvetching is
your style? Interesting. Sad..but interesting

As to your touching concern about the Constitution, I suppose that it
also includes the 2nd Amendment? Not based on various of your
previous posts.....

Gunner


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith