Just sent to the dick that wrote the article [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/09/opinion/meyer/main508498.shtml[/url]:

Dick,

Congratulations on such an excellent job of summarizing all the rhetorical lies, myths, and general misinformation about the second amendment into one concise article.

So Dick, you just keep your head in that warm, dark place, Dick.  Because if you pull it out, you might see that the founders’ intentions are crystal clear to anyone with a third grade education who does a few hours’ reading.

Dick, you just might find out that legal scholars overwhelmingly agree that the right to bear arms is an individual, not a “collective”, right that exists independent of the Bill of Rights.  Wouldn’t that be a frightening thing to discover?  Even if the Second Amendment were repealed, as you suggested, that changes nothing, the right still exists, and be certain that it will be exercised!

If you pulled your head out, Dick, once your eyes got used to the light, something they’ve apparently never seen, you would see that truth does indeed exist, as much as you would like to believe otherwise, for your own cowardly reasons.  Consensus will endure because all Americans, even you, know that private gun ownership is directly connected to our freedom.

Dick, you might also find out that the 1939 Miller case, which you make a fleeting reference to, clearly validates the founders’ intention that individual citizens be armed on parity with government foot soldiers, opposite to that which you want so much to believe.  Heaven forbid you see any part of the Cruikshank case.

Apparently someone informed you that judges don’t make laws, that’s a start.  It is laughable that anyone writing about legal or constitutional issues could state something so ridiculously far from truth, but at least you are consistent in your absolute total ignorance.

(my name, city, etc)


P.S.  Oh, and Dick, the Second Amendment will never be repealed, because those who have the power to do so know what the price of that symbolic move would be.

I read that article too.  Here is an observation.

OK Dick, why is it that anything the NRA puts out is propaganda, and what the opposition puts out isn't?

Bilster

Artical....what artical?

go to the home page and click on the article link with the same title as this thread

[url]http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:vOiuRFwStNQC:www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf+gillespie+v.+city+of+indianapolis&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]

This is the gist of the "collective" rights argument.  Notice that all cases either stem from 1939 Miller case or are dated after it as if what was said before 1939 doesn't count.  Notice also how the words from Miller are distorted in the extreme.

It is customary for thread authors put links to articles they refer to in the initial post. You won't get folks to run around looking for what the HELL you are talking about..

Gee, I thought everybody read the articles from the home page, to me it's hard to miss the headlines...