On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:35:42 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:00:44 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Why would they have needed an ammendment?

To make it extremely clear. Just in case some jerks in the future decide
that they would like to curtail gun ownership and free use.

How many other
"wants" do you have? Do they all need ammendments too, just
to make YOU happy? So that you can get your way?

I'll settle for the ones in the Constitution and in common law.

BTW, That's NOT what the 2nd says. Back to Jr. High with
you; you just failed government class.

Firstly Cliffie... Bite me! I didn't fail. You are a moron.

Second, I *DO* know what the Amendment says and have its correct
interpretation. It describes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Rather than just saying you disagree, you have to insult me. You're a
sniveling little ****. Come talk to me that way to my face you jerk!
Brave
on Usenet, huh?

I'd wager many in the prisons and nut houses would just love
a few of your noisemakers.
Why don't you take them a few Nukes?

Cliffie... I don't need firearms or nukes to handle you. You don't know
who you are talking to. I am more than capable of dealing with you hand to
hand. The noise will be minimal. You won't hear much of it.

You seem unarmed.

Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining.

So you are wrong again?

You really need some new schtick.

Probably be a hot seller .....

You know, if you were more convincing in your
arguments you wouldn't feel so inadequate that you need to take personal
pokes at people.

"Bite me"?

Joe

You need a proper sig.
--
Cliff