"Looks as if a federal court says the governemnt of Washington DC has no right to say, "Hey, we're alot safer without guns in folks homes" and has struck down that law which has been on the books 'bout 30 years...
According to a Washington Post article recently there are studies that show that there is 22 times greater danger of someone in the home diein' from a gun if there is a gun in the house but, hey, gotta keep them well kept militias stocked, don't we???"
"For the record I didn't say anything about the Bill of Rights being altered for political purposes---or any other purposes, for that matter-- "
The Federal Appeals Court stated that the law in question was not Constitutional. For the first time, it WILL be appealed to the Supreme Court. If your comment was meant to support the removal of a law found to be not constitutional, then I apologize for my misinterpretation: If it was ( as I believe) intended to complain about the court interfering with DC's right to violate the Constitution, then YOU are being dishonest by your comments.
"BTW, if I recall, isn't the Supreme Court supposed to do the interpreting when there are disagreements in interprtin' what the Founding Fathers meant by this or that in the Bill of Rights???"
Federal courts have that responsibility- which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and should in a casee of this significance.
Yes, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters of law- so please go back and apologize for all YOUR comments about the 2000 election, as they declared the legal standing which had Bush as the winner.
You keep demonstrating that you have a nasty - and dishonest- hypocritical attitude, using the facts you chose to support your viewpoint, yet denying those same facts to others who use them to disagree with you.