--- "Adam C. Lipscomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DEAN WROTE:
> > Well Dan, it looks like you've got the courts and
> the
> > gun control advocates behind you and i've got
> > everybody else. Your interpretation is incorrect
> to
> > anyone you'd care to ask who studies the
> constitution
> > and the bill of rights impartially - the judiciary
> > would seem to be an exception, why is this? The
> only
> > resolution is to do as Cecil suggested, try and
> repeal
> > the 2nd amendment. Anything else is underhanded
> > political maneuvering.
>
> Not just "the courts" but the Supreme Court, the
> group that makes the final
> pronouncements on whether laws are Constitutional or
> not. If you're basing
> your argument upon the Constitution (which is what
> the title of this post
> indicates), you've *got* to take into account the
> opinions of the Supreme
> Court.
Right, so if their opinions are so valid, then why in
almost 200 years haven't the non-lawyers in the
government started a drive to repeal the 2nd
amendment? The Constitution itself provides for the
common defense, so why have something cluttering up
the bill of rights if it's redundant and it only
serves to let the gun toting wackos have their way
sometimes?
> Anything else is just willful ignorance.
as is discounting the opinion of all of the people who
make it their profession to interpret those crusty old
documents laying around in DC. people who seek the
truth without a political agenda.
>
> Also, could you back up with figures that you've got
> "everybody else" behind
> you? ;-)
>
<sweeping statement backpedal mode ON>
heh, well who else but lawyers with an agenda* and
people who don't like guns, after looking at the
second amendment and the rest of the bill of rights
say that it doesn't guarantee a freedom of the people?
it's so simple.
dean
*make sure more laws get made, keep the work coming in.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
