""What he is saying in this matter is if the "Inalienable right to bear arms" is interpreted to mean Uzi's and Street Sweepers (a shot gun that fires like ten shells at the same time), nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass destruction, maybe we need to limit this inalienable right. He was courageous when he said "I am the only President to stand up too the NRA while in office." "" Bruce, what an idiot. INALIENABLE means it CAN'T BE TAKEN AWAY. If you understood the context of that partial quote, you would see that GOD gave us those inalienable rights. What.... you're going to take away what HE gave?? I think you need to take another look at the foundng documents.... and what the writers MEANT when they wrote them.. Clinton was a traitor and a sleazeball.....

Clinton would do anything he thought possible to increase his power and limit ours. Unfortunately, there are millions of "Americans" that believe the Constitution should be limited, and our rights as well. They say, that we shouldn't be allowed to have military hardware. Well, the 2nd was written so that the people could effectively OVERTHROW their government if it went bad. Can't do that with a pump shotgun now, can we? Washington said it best, and I dare any lousy liberal to claim a greater persepctive than HIS... "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

These were tests to see if the US Gov't, with approval of the public, could massacre people for damned little *real* reasons. The first test was to see if the public would sit back and accept or even approve of the massacre of a family of separatists. You just can't have people thinking for themselves and acting in what they believe to be their own life's best interest, in pursuit of their liberties and their own happiness without the government seal of approval. The second test was the same as the above, except this time it was to see if the public would sit back and accept the slaughter of religious separatists. Don't you see, the damed militant religious extremists, had to be excecuted... for just reasons of course. In both cases, the majority of people who know only what they are told bought the story as it was told. They refuse (or are they conditioned) not to assess the situation for themselves and come to their own conclusions. So the charges against both groups were blown out of proportion, and both groups met with disproportional force. In other words, excessive force. No well engineered, well executed conspiracy needed. All it takes is an agreeable or apathetic public.