That's just it, currently people interpret it that way, but it wasn't the intent and you have admitted it, and admitted that you don't care about the constitutionality or history of the issue.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:03 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Obama coming after the guns > > > Judah wrote: > > This argument has some appeal but I don't know if it really > holds up. > > Chances are the average person who is going to be using a > gun in self > > defense isn't out on patrol, waiting for an attack. > > (1.) I don't think the Constititution provides for personal > gun ownership, but that's a purely subjective and academic > not meant to be provocative - just my opinion on the words as > they're written and not meant to be prescriptive. > > (2.) What's a "gun". Can't have nukes, can't have bazookas, > and I don't think you can have 50 cal air cooled brownings > either, but I'm not an expert. > > (3.) Since the line has been drawn on a "gun" ban somewhere > between Dark Matter Disruptors and cap guns aren't we just > arguing where the line is? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:279777 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
