Notes from the Resistance
We are losing machine guns, folks, and we’re losing them every single day, and they’re never coming back most likely. [Watch]
As long as lawyers representing us continue to treat “in common use” as what’s commercially permitted instead of what’s deployed with, he’s right.
[Via Jess]
But whether the top cops are innocent or guilty of charges is beside the real point gun owners should be concerned with. The militarization of police is what opens the door to exclusivity and enables corruption. And you’d better believe the officials and the deputies/officers they command would arrest any of us if they found us non-compliant with a “gun law.” The “Only Ones” hypocrisy reeks. [More]
Nice work if you can get it. The problem is, without a badge, you can’t, and therein lies the crux of police as “Only Ones.”
Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the M-16. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s M-16s and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.” [More]
He’s leaving out the big “but” that immediately follows:
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
Previously qualified as:
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right…
I’ve posted this here because if I’m to get my other work done, I don’t have time to get embroiled in comments on AmmoLand, and besides, I get my say in the article and comments are for the readers.
And point of order…
“You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved.” [More]
Now, what are all those “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” in Congress going to do about it?
Feds Say Wyoming Man Has No Right To Make His Own Machine Gun [More]
What else would we expect oath-breaking violence monopolist totalitarians to say?
Funny, how few “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” in Congress have ever tried to do anything about that when their party held the majority…
[Via CP]
“The community is very supportive and I am grateful they took the time to educate themselves on the process of how obtaining these firearms takes place,” Wendt told The Daily Beast in a Tuesday text message, confirming the reinstatement and the stipulation. “I wish journalists would do the same and realize this is an attack on the 2nd amendment and not just about me.” [More]
I’ll bite. If it’s about the Second Amendment, could I do it?
[Via Dan Gifford]
