Jackson Dryden wrote in a message to Alex Vasauskas:
 AV> If we had new direction from the Supreme Court regarding the
 AV> significance of the 2nd Amendment that affirms the right to
 AV> keep and bear arms, then the case it decided (in this instance
 AV> the assault-weapons-ban) would be the last word on the issue,
 AV> and there would hopefully also be less impetus to pass
 AV> similar gun bans as a waste of time.
 JD>  
 JD> That would be nice, but even if the SC ruled in favor of the
 JD> "individual"  interpretation, it would hardly be the "last word".
 JD> Look how many times they have gone back over Roe vs. Wade.
Any additional precedent in our favor would help.
 JD> Also, what makes you think that will keep them from passing
 JD> anti-gun legislation? It didn't stop them from re-writing the "gun
 JD> free schools" bs that they got shoved back at them last year, did
 JD> it?
It wouldn't stop attempts, but it would make attempts less likely
and less likely to be ultimately successful.
 JD>  
 JD> We can't win this thing from the top. Only a grass roots ground
 JD> swell will make it political suicide for a public servant to try to
 JD> "legally" take our guns away.
 JD>  
 JD> However, we cannot let the big guys get away with murder. We still
 JD> have to keep up the pressure, but the war will be won at the lowest
 JD> level of the political ladder, by *the people*. They will have to
 JD> remind our employees who their bosses are.
It will not be won if we give up the 2nd Amendment by not challenging
gun banning on this basis.  It is no good having it or claiming that
it supports our point of view if we can't or don't use it to protect
our rights, if any, and lobby only for the Privilege to Keep and Bear
Arms.
--- 
---------------