makes me happy

[cartman]

I read this article and I think that gun banners are really on the defensive for a change

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901794.html

[ghettoshecky]

Wow, can you say biased, and poorly written with critiscisms based on absoultely no scientific data.

[TMC]

Wow, can you say biased, and poorly written with critiscisms based on absoultely no scientific data.


It is an Editorial not a new article. That said these people won't let the facts get in the way of thier pre-concieved ideas.

[tgriffin]

yeah. wow. WTF do they think the police use to protect them?

[Pvt. Cowboy]

I read this article and I think that gun banners are really on the defensive for a change

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901794.html

That Washington Post editorial sounds quite a lot like the angry letter written by John C. Calhoun to President John Quincy Adams after the US Supreme Court decided that certain Africans who were not born into slavery were considered to have the individual rights of American citizens as enumerated in the US Constitution.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Wow, can you say biased, and poorly written with critiscisms based on absoultely no scientific data.

Notice also that it's unsigned.

[ibbryn]

stated that the Second Amendment was adopted "with obvious purpose" of protecting the ability of states to organize militias and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

------------------------
The quote above is from the editioral. The quote marks are theirs, right where they put them.

Is that correct, that the Miller decision was "protecting the ability of states to organize militias" or is that the editorials interpretation? I'm specifically wondering about their term "ability of states" since Title 10 says certain citizens are members of the unorganized militia.

[xenophobe]

Sounds like a call to anti-gunners to pressure DC to not appeal.

[stag1500]

Looks like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I love it! :D

[adamsreeftank]

This line is kind of ironic:

The NRA predictably welcomed yesterday's ruling. According to its myth, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection.


Isn't that the definition of a gun ban?

[cartman]

Well if all hand guns were illegal in dc then anyone who had them was a criminal. So wheres the myth. These people grasp at anything that will further their assinine cause of futility. F**k em we should start flooding our local papers with our own editorials. So many that they'd have to print some. And unlike the antis we can actually quote facts to help our argument. IMHO

[Paratus et Vigilans]

You know, a fair reading of U.S. vs. Miller (1939) would be that not only should we all be allowed to "keep and bear arms," but that we are likely morally obligated, if not legally so, each and all, to keep and bear true M4's and M16A2's with three round burst selectors and capability, since those are the military weapons "of the day" for a U.S. soldier, and certainly not the weapons of a criminal. :cool:

It is also well to bear in mind that when the SCOTUS decided U.S. vs. Miller it did so based only on the argument of the appellant, the government, since the appellee, Miller, did not appear or argue the case in the SCOTUS. Had he done so, or had the NRA briefed it as amicus curiae, someone likely would have pointed out that Miller's sawed-off shotgun would have been right at home with soldiers in a trench in France in 1918 and the whole "weapons of the day" argument would have gone belly up right then and there.

The Parker case is an excellent example of appellate justice when the matter is fully and fairly briefed and the arguments that prevail are not tortured or disingenuous. It is a well reasoned, sound and solid decision, and the gun grabbers are not going to fare well against it in the SCOTUS, IMHO.

I would LOVE to see the current "management" of the District of Columbia petition for cert on this one. :D

Oh please, don't throw me in the briar patch!!!;)

[hoffmang]

The saddest thing is I actually think they'll appeal. Also, if they don't appeal we can fully explore the 2nd Amendment in the Federal Circuit. Son of Miller could be the next thing to bring, though politically there are smaller things in federal law that could be cleaned up first.

-Gene