"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

When people start talking about their justifications for the 2nd
Amendment,
things usually get slippery.

Honestly though, there's precious little discussion about 'justification'
for any of the bill of rights in courtrooms. Lots of discussion about
interpretation, and lots of discussion about 'does some law run afoul
of a piece of the bill of right' but you don't usually get into the
"why is it there" question.

That's the discussion for around the cracker barrel. All the Supreme Court,
in particular, has to do with it is to decide what's constitutional.

All of them are parts of our constitution, and everyone agrees on that.

But nobody says well, we really don't need guns, or we really don't
need warrants, or we really don't need to keep religion and government
separate, or it's really OK to impose prior restraint on the press.

Hmm. Herr Bush seems to disagree with you. And he's such a fine
constitutional scholar, you know. 'Went to Yale and all that. g

--
Ed Huntress