Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
Learn something every day.

So you claim, yet your posts belie you.

On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

Big of you. Thanks.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Try the 9th, where it says rights need not be enumerated. - Or the 14th, where it says we have a right to life, liberty and property.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

He did just that in a lengthy letter filled with logical points. - You offer a simple denial. Emphasis 'simple'.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

And you offer a buffoons retort. - Thanks.

13 posted on 01/11/2003 11:19:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine
The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment. The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next".

"We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

16 posted on 01/11/2003 11:42:51 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson