Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:48:10 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> > Roger wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > > It seems almost unfair to pick on the historically challenged.
>> > >
>> > > There is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Look at the court
>> > > decisions. Look at the law. If there was such a right, the gun control
>> laws
>> > > on the books would have been overturned. They have not.
>> >
>> > The right to keep and bear arms existed, and was utilized, on
>> > April `9, 1775.  It was reaffirmed the next year in the
>> > Declaration of Independence.   If you deny the right to keep and
>> > bear arms, I such you swear your allegiance to your Queen.
>>
>> There is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Look at the court
>> decisions. Look at the law.
>
>Speaking of the Law....
>
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
>Sorry, looks like there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and
>that right is protected by the law.
>
>


Take your regulated militia and shove it up your ass.  A tired, outdated argument.
  
    The Speedbyrd :>