"Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:x-6B47CB.22482702052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <vbQSj.108$aA1.24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Further you didn't cite one. You simply asserted one, the one which BTW
>> is
>> under contention. As such you can hardly use it as a valid cite since
it
>> hasn't been agreed that it is a "collective right". If it had, then it
>> wouldn't be necessary for us to discuss it.
>
> It's only "under contention" because Herb (and you) choose not to
> acknowledge decades of court rulings holding that this is a collective
> right.
Decades of court rulings on WHAT RIGHT? In what case(s)?
If you are claiming Miller you haven't READ Miller or you really
did waste your Dad's college money.
