In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"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?

The Supreme Court should deal with perjury in the Supreme Court.

And YES, I am willing to support an individual right in almost
everything. I see 2 problems with Roe v Wade; the Constitution does not
give the Feds jurisdiction over medicine, and the issue of legal life
needs to be settled. It has always been at birth. If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter. They might also require
monthly pregnancy tests to assure they don't lose any future soldiers or
bureaucrats. Do you want to give the Feds that power?

The govt that has the power to give you what you want has the power to
take what you have.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/