Comments on: Well, I’ll be . . http://www.saysuncle.com/2003/07/03/well-ill-be/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:57:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Buck Hicks http://www.saysuncle.com/2003/07/03/well-ill-be/comment-page-1/#comment-144 Buck Hicks Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=661#comment-144 I didn't register to the Washington post to read that story but I assume that it is similar to the one from the Newsobserver, which states, "The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers - not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons." Is the NRA trying to become compassionate 2nd Amendment advocates? I didn’t register to the Washington post to read that story but I assume that it is similar to the one from the Newsobserver, which states, “The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers – not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.”

Is the NRA trying to become compassionate 2nd Amendment advocates?

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2003/07/03/well-ill-be/comment-page-1/#comment-145 SayUncle Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=661#comment-145 That's the same story word for word. Must be the AP. That’s the same story word for word. Must be the AP.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.saysuncle.com/2003/07/03/well-ill-be/comment-page-1/#comment-146 Andrew Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=661#comment-146 I'll have to find it, but Scalia himself has said that he can't find anything in the Constitution which would prevent a state from banning guns. It's not a clear constitutional issue and, as federalists, we can get hoisted on our own petard here --- we like state's rights, but what if the state doesn't do something we like? I’ll have to find it, but Scalia himself has said that he can’t find anything in the Constitution which would prevent a state from banning guns. It’s not a clear constitutional issue and, as federalists, we can get hoisted on our own petard here — we like state’s rights, but what if the state doesn’t do something we like?

]]>