On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:37:37 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
BTW, The subject was the need & the US Constitution. You got lost.

Nope, YOUR subject was some imagined "need" and the US Constitution. You keep
dodging every time people keep asking you about this imagined need, so it's
obvious you realize the dishonesty.

While
we're on the red herring subject of "valid use", do you have a "valid use" for a
car that will drive above the speed limit? Since there's no place in the US with
a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of those
dangerous cars, shouldn't we?

Something that accelerates well enough to get into traffic is nice.
Along with that is the power to go faster than the speed limit.

Nice? You "need" nice? Hardly. BTW, where in the Constitution does it grant you
the right to even drive a car?

I assume that they took your license long ago but that between
your stays in jail you still drive. Should you be allowed guns too?

Never been arrested. I see no reason I should be "allowed" guns, since I'm not a
subject. I'm an American citizen, and we are not "allowed" guns. We have rights
which include the right to keep and bear arms. You really should have paid
attention in Civics class. :/

Of course, that would be ASSuming YOUR "logic" was
really valid and not just a pretense to further your real agenda.

Teaching wingers to think before flapping the lips?

Before you can teach anything you have to know something.


Are you going to claim that they make fine hammers?

Nope, they don't go much good for driving nails.

Tell Gunner.

He knows that already.

Please supply some logic here. A bit of foorp would be nice too.

How would you know? Logic would be lost on you, I think.

I am amused that you lack both.

Again, you wouldn't know it if you saw it anyway.