Supreme Court Brief Makes the Case Against Banning Militia Arms
BY Herschel Smith
44 minutes ago
“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.”
Yes. Exactly. The entire premise that they get to regulate arms because they too much resemble military weapons turns the second amendment on its head. It is precisely those arms which are protected by the 2A.
Besides, not only is the above correct, but I have previously pointed out the subterfuge of trying to distinguish between military and civilian weapons.
This notion of military style weapons is and always has been a misdirect and a bald and stupid emotional appeal. There is no such thing as a non-military style weapon. Every weapon was at one time a military style weapon, from rocks to spears and then to knives and swords and then on to bows and then to muskets, bolt action rifles, and semiautomatic and fully automatic rifles.
The U.S. Marine Corps used Benelli shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan, and I can prove it …
Door gunners used revolvers in Vietnam, and I can prove it …
MACV-SOG used revolvers and Marlin .444 lever action rifles in Laos, and I can prove it.
And bolt action rifles are still in use today with snipers …
This is about disarmament. This isn’t about military versus civilian weapons. There is no distinction.
I proved my case. The correct answer is not in doubt. I am right. Everybody knows I’m right. I enjoy being right. I am so right that there is no further purpose in arguing about it.
But being right doesn’t necessarily mean much when the politics of the court gets in the way.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment