J. Clarke wrote:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:



In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes


Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden
wrote:



Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left


Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say



Free men own guns


And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment
cult.



We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic



Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
weapons ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?


It seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit disagrees with your intepretation.

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the
Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well
regulated militia" or to members of a militia.