129

[rothschild]

I clearly stated it was an absurd argument that I didn't personally support.  However, it is a position subject to your rigorous and objective interpretation.

To pretend otherwise is arrogant and foolish  . . . and it is neither emotional nor untrue. 

Where in the Constitution is the right to bear arms granted?

Is the purpose of bearing arms negated by an interpretation that deems ammunition to be a separate entity?

What do you think is the threshhold for the determination of rigorous objectivity?

Do specious arguments meet an objective threshhold?

Now . . . show me where in the Constitution it states that the founding fathers prohibited citizens from owning the same firearms as used by the military.

The Constitution clearly articulates the remedy for such matters, does it not?