The Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under the Bush administration, put out a memo saying they believed the second amendment secures an individual right.
So?
Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.
No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.
Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.
What would keep a future administration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and linguistic structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.
No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.
Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.
What would keep a future adminstration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and liguisticu structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.
So?
Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.
You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?
Then bobbie, - depending on how you people ~act~ upon your "interpretations", it may be time [as Claire Wolfe put it] to straighten you collectivists out.
You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms?
Don't hype me bob. -- The facts noted in that report are valid, regardless of who 'tells' them.
You simply can not refute those facts, can you?
Two bits you ignore those facts, and run away from the issue again.
-- What ever happened to your big boast a few weeks ago to 'settle this once and for all'?