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

"Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > Steve Krulick wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Look at the court cases. You're wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to
> > > > infringe on the private ownership of weapons.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The Const says nothing about private ownership of guns
> > > one way or the other. But as regulation and restriction is NOT
> > > the same as infringement, your point is moot.
> > >
> > > LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
> > > Fourth Circuit.
> > > Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
> >
> > Learn to read.
> >
> > I stated the fact that the federal government has no
> > constitutional authority to infringe on the private ownership of
> > weapons.  If you feel my assertion is wrong, feel free to cite
> > portion of the Constitution which gives the federal government
> > such authority.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Don't bother citing any court case.  Cite the Constitution.
>
> This is the fatal flaw in your legal thinking. No law, including the
> Contitution, means ANYTHING AT ALL until a court interprets it.
>
> >
> > David
>
>

DY: So the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not mean anything when they
were written, debated, and ratified? Then what possbile need is there for
Constitutions?

Ahhhh! I see the catch here. "Legal thinking". This might rate right up
there with "military intelligence", no?

Read the Founders' own period views on the Bill of Rights and Second
Amendment, if you want to know those views.

--
David E. Young    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
Cited over 100 times in the Emerson Decision
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Info: http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com