"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision? Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

--
Ed Hountress