Ed wrote:
> At 07:17 PM 6/2/02, Lucky Green wrote:
> >In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the
> Supreme Court
> >held that:
> >
> >...
> >
> >"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
> neither is
> >it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
> e
And in 1908 in Twining, the USSC found that the 5th amendment was similarly
a limitation upon the national government, not the state governments, i.e.,
the states are not required by the fifth amendment to abstain from
requiring a defendant to incriminate himself in testimony. But the first 8
At 07:17 PM 6/2/02, Lucky Green wrote:
>In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court
>held that:
>
>...
>
>"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is
>it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
>second amendment means
>and being able to kill each and every one from behind.
>Don't expose yourselves -- always shoot from behind. But know this one thing
Aim for the head, and use fragmenting/hydrashock ammo. Exploded heads seem to disturb
others the most.
Is there any other possible interpretation other than that
we have no other choice than to take up arms against the police,
the FBI, or any other TLA, that seeks to deprive us of our rights?
Ask yourselves -- what would Jefferson or Washington do at this moment?
Ask yourselves -- what is yo
At 07:36 PM 5/31/02, you wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31GUNS.html
>
>WASHINGTON, May 30 Two men charged with carrying pistols without a license
>in the District of Columbia have invoked the Bush administration's
>position on guns to seek the dismissal of their cases.
>
>Rev
