Really, so then all the other rights that say OF THE PEOPLE must not be about individuals then?
All the documentation of the authors of that document saying it's an individual right mean nothing? Fuck I wish I wasn't at MEPS. Gruss Gott wrote: > So this big case is coming before the SCOTUS today. For me, I would > say that, as the constitution is written, the federal gov't DOES NOT > protect *an individuals* right to bear arms. Technically it would > seem that's a matter left up to the states. Whether that's the right > choice or not I'm not claiming, but technically I don't think the > constitution protects the right for individuals to bear arms. > > -- -- > WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia is asking the Supreme Court to > preserve the capital's ban on handguns in a major case over the > meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." > > A Washington resident who wants to keep handguns at home for > protection is challenging the 32-year-old ban as a violation of his > constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed > that the city cannot ban handguns. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256738 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
