[robertpaulsen]

Thank you for the exact quote. He's not lying. He's stating his opinion. And his opinion and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

It carries no more weight than if Hillary is made President and her justice department said it was a collective right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been mute. But, every lower federal court in every case (save the 5th Circuit in one case) has said it's a collective right. I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would take note of that on any future second amendment ruling.

[Dead Corpse]

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

You can spin it, but you can't win it...

[jmc813]

The U.S. Supreme Court has been mute. But, every lower federal court in every case (save the 5th Circuit in one case) has said it's a collective right. I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would take note of that on any future second amendment ruling.

I think that if Bush gets to appoint another Roberts/Alito quality justice, it would be a very good time to settle this in the SCOTUS once and for all.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "The U.S. Supreme Court has been mute. But, every lower federal court in every case (save the 5th Circuit in one case) has said it's a collective right. I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would take note of that on any future second amendment ruling."

Perhaps you can clarify for the rest of us whether you believe that the failure to "incorporate" the Second Amendment is judicial error. Do you believe that the "priveleges and immunities" of citizens of the United States includes the immunity from infringement of their right to keep and bear arms?