"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:
snippage...
I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.
Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.
And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action. Again, your
ideological ignorance is getting in the way of rationality, eh?
snip rest of spew...