|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The express purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the continued maintenance of an armed populace. In fact, the Second Militia Act of 1792 legally required every adult able-bodied white American male to own and maintain “weapons of war” (a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder and bullets) just in case the militia had to be called out.
Even in the 1939 case usually cited to justify victim disarmament (“gun control”) laws, U.S. v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reason Jack Miller's short-barreled shotgun could be banned was that it WASN’T a weapon of war: “[I]t 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.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/10/2017)
|
“[I]t 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.”
Notice the trick the lawyers pulled. They said that A PARTICULAR SHOTGUN had no useful militia/army purpose.
Maybe not Miller's particular shotgung, but shotguns have been used in every war since their invention. In WW1 they were called "trench brooms."
But because of legal chicanery, SCOTUS blew the Miller case and we're living with the results. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(3/10/2017)
|
All American shooters should be familiar with the Miller case.
"... the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument."
In fact, he absconded and was found shot to death before the decision was rendered.
And anyone who believes that short-barrelled shotguns were not used in the trenches of WWI is simply ignorant of the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
