"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

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.

Just as to further avoid discrimination, people of all colors have
traditionaly used spears in warfare. Whites, Asians, tribal people of
all colors. What I find strange is that the weapons they are claimin
to ban are the cheap swords that are really not made well for actual
use but are easily affordable by the public while rich people that can
afford weapons grade swords are being protected. It's like saying
that pellet guns are being banned but really expensive rifles are
okay. Don't get me wrong, they should all be legal but it seems a
little hypocritical that they ban an item that is made for decoration
and is little more than a toy but keep the real thing around. People
that come up with such bans really have some other agenda in mind. In
California, gun laws are aimed less at the capability of the firearm
and more at the appearance of the firearm. Barrel shrouds and front
mounted pistol grips are banned, so are flash suppressors but how does
that change the capability of being able to kill someone? The fact is
that you have a better chance of dying from a misdiagnosis by a doctor
than being killed by a gun. Swords are little difference. The only
difference is that you have to have a little more skill to be good
with one. If not with a sword you can just as easily kill someone
with a kitchen knife or a brick. Eventually we will all have to live
in a Nerf world because it is safer and we will have mandatory hugging
sessions daily with one person from ever race and religious background
in our community.

All Hail Big Brother.


Bill