Taking a swipe at the "anti's"

[Jack Lawman]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John Sabato:
<strong>Jack, IMO the second amendment is the only constituional insurance that the citizens of this country have to guarantee that we can keep the rest of the bill of rights from being taken away from us. It is indispensable...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">This is the point I am trying to make. Sorry I didn't make myself more clear. Believing "that the second ammendment has outlived its usefelness, the U.S. government is incapable of tyranny, and that all self-evident rights have become self-preserving as well" is all part of the mindset of the urban masses I made reference to in my first post post on this thread.

People are free to believe it if they so choose (this is America), no matter how nonsensical the notion may be. If you oppose the second ammendment, you must oppose it in its entirity, stand against its original intent, and act to have it repealed. If the Congress can ever muster enough votes for the repeal, the battle will have long been over.

Have I totally confused everyone yet? All I know is that it makes sense to me <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ...sort of <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" />

Jack