XPost: soc.support.fat-acceptance, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights   
   From: peter@nospamplease.dk   
      
   Holly Brown  wrote:   
      
   > George Harvey Wilson  wrote:   
   > > Dragon  wrote:   
   > > > A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free   
   > > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be   
   > > > infringed.   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > Which means that all laws restricting the use and acquisition of firearms   
   on   
   > > the books in the USA are unconstitutional null and void.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > No, it means that all laws restricting the use and acquisition of grenades,   
   > land mines, sarin gas, shoulder mounted AA artillery, heavy artillery and all   
   > other military armaments and are null and void.   
   >   
   > The 2nd Amendment isn't just referring to light arms.   
      
   No, but is it reasonable to assume that you should have the right to   
   acquire, possess and use Sarin Gas? Is Sarin Gas and Nuclear Weapons   
   (another example) useful for defense of the home? Is it reasonable to   
   use Sarin gas to defend your home if it means your neighbours will died   
   too (quite possibly as well as yourself and your family).   
      
   > It's our right, and if Bush doesn't agree, it makes a tyrant.   
      
   It s a mans right to defend himself, his family and his property, with   
   force (even deadly if the circumstances call for it), if need be. But   
   dont go down the road of defending individual ownership of WMD. It's a   
   losers errand.   
      
   --   
   regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk   
   "Blame freedom for the problems caused by its lack" <--- is the essence   
   of the arguments of most anti-libertarians.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)