"Steve Leyland" wrote in
message ...
wilbur do you support the availability of lethal weapons to the
public?
if so, why?


First off, I deleted the crossposts in the headers. You weren't going to
try netKKKopping me for excessive cross posts now were you?

To answer your question I'm going to quote a famous document: "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." Note
the Second Amendment to the Constitution states the people have the
right to bear arms. It does not say "firearms" it says "arms". The
dictionary defines "arm," the verb, as "to furnish weapons." It follows
that the noun, arms, means weapons. So any weapon people can bear is a
right. This includes rifles, hand grenades, pistols, swords, spears (you
can't discriminate against blacks ya know) knives, brass knuckles, etc.
However, the liberal courts are constantly chipping away at the people's
right to bear arms.

So, as you can see, I DO support the right of the people to lethal
weapons but only if they can bear (carry) them. In other words I'm not
for the right of the people to have atom bombs, tanks, ships of war,
etc. The why is self-evident. It's because the right to bear arms is
Constitutionally guaranteed.

Wilbur Hubbard