Dean wrote:
> > 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?
I think you're setting up a straw man - neither I nor anyone else on this
thread has advocated either outright banning the ownership of guns or repeal
of the 2nd Amemdment. Nor, for that matter, have we referred to anyone as
"gun toting wackos". I myself prefer the term "gundamentalist" myself. ;-)
I don't have a problem with gun ownership per se, but I do have a problem
with poorly constructed arguments in favor of gun ownership.
> > 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.
Huh?
> 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.
Straw man again.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
