Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:44:30 GMT, David Lentz <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> 
wrote:

>
>
>Speedbyrd wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> >It seems almost unfair to pick on the historically challenged.
>> >Such is life:
>> >
>> >       When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
>> >people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
>> >with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
>> >separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
>> >Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
>> >mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
>> >them to the separation.
>
><snip>
>
>> I said that it needs an overhaul.  I still say the same.  We cannot behave 
>> ourselves with guns.  Therefore,
>> other alternatives need to be found.
>
>I take it as comforting that even a avowed anti like Speed
>recognizes the sound  constitutional basis for the pro freedom
>position.   As much as Speed hates gun, he admits that the
>Constitution is an impediment to his statist dreams.
>
>I pose a question, can a citizenry that can not be trusted with a
>bullet be trusted with a ballot?  I say no.  A ballot is far more
>dangerous than a bullet.  Governments have killed far more people
>than bullets have.
>
>David


so that makes it ok, I guess!  Sound reasoning to own guns.
  
    The Speedbyrd :>