[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Any point you have made has been addressed.

[Abundy]

Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Apparently you can't remember what you wrote.

In #118 you attempted to convey that cannons were not covered by the Second Amendment. In support of this assertion you offered evidence by stating that "Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution what concoction of crap did you get that gem from?"

I merely called you on your absolute lack of knowledge of history. However, since those earlier posts I checked your page and note you claim a minor in history. Fiven this pedigree that you allege, your proffered "proof" could be simply a material misrepresentation on your part instead of arising from total ignorance of history.

I also am enjoying your attempt to evade the issue of the Constitutionality of Welfare around about #220. All that after telling NMC that he couldn't pass your constitutional test...

Maybe he could pass it because you wouldn't recognize the correct answers?

I'm afraid to keep reading through this thread - I might die from laughter.