Re: The Armed Citizen - Missouri

"Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Hartung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Oh, I see what the problem is. You believe guns should be ubiquitous
> until
> > I
> > > can prove they shouldn't be. I believe they should be restricted until
> you
> > > can prove they shouldn't be. In other words, I believe in erring on
the
> > side
> > > of caution.
> >
> > One minor problem, the Constitution disagrees with you.
>
> That's a bold declaration which is unsupported by facts.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
>
> "In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with
> respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of
> firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of
> firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what
right
> the Second Amendment protects."
>
> Second amendment thinking by lawyerly types is confusing. I have never
read
> any objective opinion that says there is an clear right to own a gun.
There
> might be at some time in the future if the Supreme court rules that way,
but
> so far it hasn't.

%%%% All your decision states is that Miller could not lawfully own a sawed
off shotgun because he didn't pay the tax to own it. It does not address the
right to keep and bear arms. Your site also did not refer to the last court
decision------- Emerson!!   :o)

>
> SG
>
>