"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
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.

But they don't, unless there's a constitutional issue raised by the perjury
itself -- an unlikely possibility. So that doesn't answer the question.


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.

Well, that's what Roe v. Wade does, doesn't it?

If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter.

Nonsense. If she miscarries, that's an accident of nature, not something
that happens due to her volition.

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 people who might are the Christian right. g


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

Are we coining flimsy aphorisms, or deciding a legal issue?

It sounds to me that you agree that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision. If
you're willing to reach out beyond the words and history of the Bill of
Rights to find additional "rights," then there probably is no limit to what
you could find. Or do you have a guiding principle for that?

The guiding principle created in Roe v. Wade is clever, logically
consistent, and perfectly rational. But it continues to stick in the craw of
many people who don't like the decision. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment.

--
Ed Huntress