They're still smokin' it in Madison. "How to deal with gun violence? Ban guns."
The Second Amendment? Sugarmann points out it doesn’t cover handguns because it refers to the militia, which never used handguns. Neither does the Army, which replaced the militia. So, if we ban handguns, we can take the NRA to the Supreme Court. That would be great sport.
My reply to the editor:
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: tctvoice@madison.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 19, 2015 6:49 am
Subject: Provoking a bloody civil war seems an odd way to reduce "gun violence.'
Dear Editor,
If enacted, John Morgan's benighted proposal to prohibit handguns to law-abiding folks (for criminals will never be bound by such a pie-in-the-sky proposal, criminals being, well, criminals) will presumably be backed by all the force of state violence. Of course, turning millions of his heretofore peaceable fellow citizens into felons seems to miss his notice entirely. And what will he do when we refuse to be disarmed without a fight? Provoking a bloody civil war seems an odd way to reduce "gun violence.' But for sheer collectivist hallucination and complete ignorance of the Law of Unintended Consequences, he must be congratulated. If not drug induced, it is an Olympian feat of blindfolded tap dancing in a minefield.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126
10 comments:
John Morgan writes-
"...the best opinion for dealing with handguns: Ban them. Except for police and foresters, they are useless..."
My guess is that John Morgan is a forester.
Besides being an asshole he's a bit confused. When exactly did the Army replace the Militia? And what's that weapon hanging off a pistol belt that gets used in a last ditch attempt to save your skin when your rifle jams? oh right! It's a PISTOL. Hence the term "Pistol Belt". (Nowadays a leg-rig is more common). Considering America is actually now "Backwardsland", the term Progressives must actually mean "Retardives", or something of that nature
It is Madison after all. The Berkeley of the Midwest.
The ignorance of the Left is driving me to distraction! - and teaching history. The Supreme Court upheld the the NFA in US v Miller stating ownership of militia and military weapons were protected by the 2A, and were too ignorant to know what a trench gun was (SBS)! JEB Stuart's cavalry carried sawed off shotguns under their cloaks in the Civil War. Maybe the Supremes realized they fought under that other flag and therefore did not count.
Since when did they completely abandon the "sporting purposes only" argument and go straight for the jugular? I guess that should tell you a bit about where they view where they are on their particular timetable.
"The ignorance of the Left is driving me to distraction! - and teaching history. The Supreme Court upheld the the NFA in US v Miller stating ownership of militia and military weapons were protected by the 2A, and were too ignorant to know what a trench gun was (SBS)! JEB Stuart's cavalry carried sawed off shotguns under their cloaks in the Civil War. Maybe the Supremes realized they fought under that other flag and therefore did not count"
The Miller decision does not say that the Judges were unaware of short barreled shotguns being used by the military. What it does say is:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158." -- US v Miller 1939 307 U.S. 174(No. 696)
Miller was dead, his council had not been paid and didn't show up. The council for the U S government was under no obligation to submit evidence for Miller's side. Hence, no evidence was submitted to the court.
US v Miller was an abortion from start to finish. It should be an embarrassment to all that it ever became the defining case law on 2A and unchallenged till the present day.
I grew up with Josh Sugarmann in of all places, Newtown CT in the 70's. You had to know Josh's parents to understand how such a Left Leaning Loon like Josh could be spawned.
I take great pleasure in remembering beating his ass in a fight on a Boy Scout(Troop 70) campout in the early 70's such was Josh's ability to piss me off even back then.
Ah, but the military nowadays uses short barreled shotguns for breaching and close quarters combat. Someone with deep pockets needs to challenge Miller.
Al~III
The founding fathers also did not use keyboards, so unless the libturds are writing with quill and ink, their thoughts are worthless.
So then, ink pens and pencils, mechanical and standard, can be banned too, right? This fool is saying exactly that. His laptops printer? Yep, it can be banned as well. But hilariously, heller dealt with this exact point regarding guns. Even in judicial fiat world of case law, the banning of handguns dogma was tossed aside as abject idiocy. I guess this guy here didn't get the memo....
Post a Comment