Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?
Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.
|
Once again, it has been the law of the land for more than 200 years now, the supreme court doesn't need to "agree" on it.
Your statment is inaccurate. Despite many attempts by anti-gun groups, the Supreme ciurt has UPHELD the right. That isn't "surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on," that is very clear.
YOUR creation of the facts is what's in question. My version is the law of the land. My gun sits comfortably in my pocket.