On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:09:20 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

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.

No, but I'll keep them locked up while you visit. Feeling brave?

You seem unarmed.

Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining.

So you are wrong again?

About what now, Cliffie?

Take your choice.

You really need some new schtick.

Probably be a hot seller .....

Or not.

You said that they could have guns; it's their right, right?

After all, until the shrubbie, they could have lawyers &
courts too.

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"?

You might recall the above reply in response to your insults and not your
attempt at logical discourse.

You probably need to look again.

"I have guns" is hardly "logical discourse" in rational circles.

Joe

You need a proper sig.

What, like yours below? What I use is plenty.

Joe

For a winger or a gunnut?
--
Cliff