David,
I left the following as a comment on the "Fincher Denied" post late last night. I would like an answer. -- Paul
-
All we were asking was to let the JURY decide what weapons were suitable for militia use. — per Miller
You know, it's really funny (and not "Ha Ha"), but WE, the citizens are the ones who vote to ratify a Constitution at the state level, and we would instruct our state representatives and senators how they should vote were another Federal Constitution to come before them for ratification. Moreover, we have instructed them on how we wanted them to vote on Amendments to the Federal Constitution in the last 50 years.
YET . . .
IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE COURTS — SOMEHOW WE ARE SO D%@?*^% DUMB WE CAN'T SIT IN A JURY BOX AND DECIDE WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND WHAT IT OUGHT TO MEAN!
Does anyone besides me see something horribly wrong with this picture?
That means we can either accept the "No," or realize that their answer won't change unless the ones giving it come to understand they have no other choice. But it's not going to be us positing an "or else" proposition to the government. They're going to be bringing it to us.
But I speak out of turn. Paul hears from me enough. He wants to know what you think.