These wireless keyboards and I don't get along. It seems that in my previous post a very important word was omitted.

Line Three should have read:

'If you own a car, and enviromentalist say you should NOT own a car.'

Anyway the point is if the Law says that you can own something, And a particular interest group for whatever reason decides that you should NOT own that item.

And a war should start over that debate of whether or not you should own that property.

Is the War then over the property, or the Constitutional Law that allows you to own that property?

Is it a wrong assumption to say that what is allowed by our laws are a granted right of the people?

Is it a wrong assumption to say that there is a prescribed and proper method within our Constitution by which the majority of the people can change laws that they do not like?

Is War one of those prescribed and approved methods?

So was the War about Slavery?

Or was it about people who could not change the laws by the prescribed methods and chose to wage war in order to deny the rights granted under the law to people who were exercising those Rights?

If the last statement above is true. Would you then fight to maintain your right to own a car if enviromentalist started a war to take your cars away from you?

What about freedom of Speech? The Press? Religion?

What rights are you willing to give up just because someone doesn't agree with your exercising what would otherwise be a legal activity?

No the war wasn't about Slavery.

It was about Constitutionally granted rights contained under article 4 and upheld by United States Supreme Court Rulings, Constitutional powers, interpretation of the 5th, 9th, and 10th amendment to that Constitution, the rule of law and a repersentative Government.

Would I fight to defend my rights under those conditions? In a heartbeat. Because the concepts contained in the Constitution are far more important than whether or not I own a car.