<<The Supreme Court has said precious little about this, but the Court has always tied gun ownership to the militia clause. Until this summer, that is.>>
The militia connection seems compelling; otherwise, why mention it? Why not leave the right just as "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."? On the other hand, reading the second amendment this way doesn't mean that the founding fathers didn't also envision a right for individuals to bear arms. They just might have thought it was inconceivable that the government might try to remove this right. Remember, our rights are not *limited* to those in the Bill of Rights. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
