P
Patriot Games
Guest
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:ef6pr3hb1gv7foekkfchg43dc61gd0au9n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:37:56 -0600, Jim Alder
> <jimalder@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I figured someone would jump on that one. But then, by your
>>definition, any rifle is an assault rifle. And/or, since a rifle is a
>>weapon,
>>an assault rifle is an assault weapon. Just because the news media and the
>>gun
>>nuts (the antigunners, that is) blur the definitions for their own agenda
>>doesn't mean we have to nitpick it into the ground.
> By your definition, the "right to bear arms" was
> redefined to go beyond a flintlock and black powder
> weapon.
> That doesn't square with "Original intent"---does it
> alderloon?
The Supreme Court will tell you your opinion in a couple of months.
Until then shut the **** up.
news:ef6pr3hb1gv7foekkfchg43dc61gd0au9n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:37:56 -0600, Jim Alder
> <jimalder@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I figured someone would jump on that one. But then, by your
>>definition, any rifle is an assault rifle. And/or, since a rifle is a
>>weapon,
>>an assault rifle is an assault weapon. Just because the news media and the
>>gun
>>nuts (the antigunners, that is) blur the definitions for their own agenda
>>doesn't mean we have to nitpick it into the ground.
> By your definition, the "right to bear arms" was
> redefined to go beyond a flintlock and black powder
> weapon.
> That doesn't square with "Original intent"---does it
> alderloon?
The Supreme Court will tell you your opinion in a couple of months.
Until then shut the **** up.