🚀 go-pugleaf

The issue does generate a lot of fine-pointed discussion, which implies
disagreement over the meaning of the amendment and confusion over the
purpose of firearms.

If only a legislature could agree to clarify the damn thing.  Something like
"A free people and a secure state being mutually dependent, the right of the
people to possess arms shall not be infringed."  I dunno.

Oops.  Here I go adding to the news server.  Dang it.  Waste of paper.

Terry E. Toller wrote in message <3AAF0C36.9B85CE53@earthlink.net>...
>Very well put!
>
>The gun issue is always clouded with confusion by those who just can't
>understand or refuse to accept basic Constitutional fundimentals.  They try
>their nonsensical arguements and when that doesn't work, name calling...
>
>Hippolyte Lizard wrote:
>
>> Not that I haven't learned anything.
>>
>> But for weeks it seems this NG has been crammed with the endless
half-baked
>> rantings of a small but loud collection of usenet gasbags obsessing on
that
>> broad intersection of law, interpretation and morality that this
>> much-overworked subject never fails to stir up.  The arguments circle
around
>> each other like a small crowd of knife-fighters, none of them able to
deal a
>> deadly or even particularly injurious blow.  But I keep coming back,
>> fascinated in spite of myself, hoping for a little color on the floor
maybe;
>> but it always looks the same and I get bored again.
>>
>> Oh well.  I feel a little better now.
>