[hinckley buzzard]

You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him.

How about swinging it at a police officer? Think that might change the situation just a leetle bit? Read the article.

[OneWingedShark]

>>You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him.
>
>How about swinging it at a police officer?

I said nothing about that, the key-word in my statement is ‘merely’.

>Think that might change the situation just a leetle bit? >Read the article.

Actually, it doesn’t change my statement’s validity or truth at all.