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

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

...I can't believe an elected official had the gall to say that in public...

I groaned when I read that too. If that wasn't an invitation for the court to step in, I don't know what is.

The funny thing is I agree with him. The Court should get involved and throw out every $%^#$ gun restriction law on the books.

But that is not where Fiengold was going here. He is suggesting the court should look at the collective vs indivdual argument, which is a non starter to anyone who understands what the 2nd Amendment is there for. It could not be any clearer.


121 posted on 09/16/2005 10:03:29 AM PDT by planekT (What a mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: planekT
It could not be any clearer.

Exactly. It is perfect as written and should not be open for interpretation.

As for all the $%^#$ gun restriction law on the books....all I can say is..."What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?"

129 posted on 09/16/2005 11:31:07 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ("Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | 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