guns & purses (was Re: guns & crime)

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

I accept the Courts of Appeal's interpretation of the 2d A as law--it's not I 
whose calling it law makes it law; it's the law because that is what the 
courts say, like it or not. As a matter of fact I think that the 
interpretation is plausible, but plausible or not, it's the law. Likewise I 
must accept the Court's current interpretation of the equal protection 
clause, which I do not like and regard as wrong, as the law also. As to 
whether the meaning of the text or language of the 2A is clear and clearly 
supports your view, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But my point 
was just that there is no controversy about what the law is, as opposed to 
what it should be. And as to the number of posts I am permittedto make, 
that's between Doug and me and his tribunal, and you are not on it. As far as 
that goes, if you think it is too many, don't answer my posts. --jks

In a message dated Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:50:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, martin 
schiller <mschiller at mac.com> writes:

<< JKSCHW at aol.com said on 10/19/00 5:54 AM


>It's gotta be eight what? 

My impression was that there was a limit on the number of posts that were 
permitted on LBO within one day.


>............................Look, guy, if every Court of Appeals--I didn't 
>list 
>them all, but thet all agree, and I just added the 5th Cir. cite in a 
>previous post--reads the 2A as interpreted by Miller to mean that there is 
>no 
>constitionally protected individual right to bear arms, there isn't any such 
>right. The S.Ct may change its mind, but until then, that's the law. If you 
>don't believe me, try it in court. --jks

I guess your salutation indicates that this is a guy thing.

The president of the united states claims that hunters and sportsmen are 
the protected class of gun owner. The judicial branch exhibits the 
convoluted logic typical of biblical scholars to rationalize this 
position. You expect anyone who can _read_ to accept these 
interpretations of the clearly phrased intent of the BOR as honest or 
valid? 

I accept that your cites represent an extremely flawed interpretation of 
the BOR, which you call law and I dare not call treason. 

 >>