To: Mr. Mojo
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803399/posts
10 posted on
03/19/2007 2:54:04 PM PDT by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: Graybeard58
17 posted on
03/19/2007 3:14:30 PM PDT by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: Graybeard58
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia.
It that is true, and I'm not saying it is because I haven't read the context of their remarks, then what is the NRA's problem?
35 posted on
03/19/2007 3:52:06 PM PDT by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson