Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen; Ken H
Bizarre argument you've made, paulsen.

Cutting to the meat of it, you conclude:

" --- OK. Now let's incorporate the second amendment. The second amendment now applies to all the states.

[An aside.. In constitutional reality, it always has applied.]

The USSC determines what rights are protected under the second amendment, and we both agree for sake of argument that CC is not a protected right.

A right to bear arms clearly means 'carry'. -- A 'determination' by the USSC that CC was not a protected right would be a clear infringement.

A citizen claims the a state CC law (which, again, the USSC does not even recognize as a constitutionally protected right)

[Dream on; -- your aside is question begging wordplay]

violates his constitutional right to X. Now, there is no dilemma, no conflict. The law is struck down, AND is struck down in all 45 states that allow CC.

Garbage theoretical argument in, garbage imagined 'decision' out.

Paulsen, you really are becoming desperate; - your weird theories about our 2nd Amendment rights are becoming laughable.

158 posted on 05/01/2005 9:05:50 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: P_A_I
"A right to bear arms clearly means 'carry'. -- A 'determination' by the USSC that CC was not a protected right would be a clear infringement."

You are so full of it. The USSC could easily rule that "bears arms" meant open carry.

So don't give me your crap that it "clearly" protects concealed carry.

161 posted on 05/01/2005 9:21:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson