It's amazing how swift and accurate you are in this challenging and contentious subject.
Even though i find myself rooting and supporting the other side i honestly and wholeheartedly congratulate you on you excellent writing. Most amazing clarity and cohesion i have seen in a long time.
Yes, it all goes back to 1939 and the arrest of the moonshiners. And you are absolutely correct about the SCOUTS decision where one of the most substantial arguments used for the ruling was:
" ``We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,`` the Supreme Court ruled. No evidence had linked sawed-off shotguns to possible military use."
No evidence had linked it because no evidence was presented during the proceedings !!!
It's obvious that such evidence could have been gathered during their time (and if you want i can forward you some solid research on those weapons with pictures and descriptions) but the judges regarded themselves not the experts in the field and since the defense wasn't there to argue the case they had to rule this way.
This is the only reason this ruling overturned the previous verdict (finding the defendants not guilty on the basis of the Second Amendment's protection) and the subsequent Federal Administrations used and abused it's course to the point where it's impossible to buy a rifle just like the one our boys use in Iraq today (M16) if it was manufactured after 1986.
Now that's disarmament by government rule: something the Second Amendment was designed to forbid. Just like the First Amendment was designed to protect your right to publish your thoughts and hear my response: however libelous or treasonous we may sound.
I wrote her a reply:
ReplyDeleteMs Woolner,
Extremely well written piece.
It's amazing how swift and accurate you are in this challenging and contentious subject.
Even though i find myself rooting and supporting the other side i honestly and wholeheartedly congratulate you on you excellent writing. Most amazing clarity and cohesion i have seen in a long time.
Yes, it all goes back to 1939 and the arrest of the moonshiners. And you are absolutely correct about the SCOUTS decision where one of the most substantial arguments used for the ruling was:
" ``We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,`` the Supreme Court ruled. No evidence had linked sawed-off shotguns to possible military use."
No evidence had linked it because no evidence was presented during the proceedings !!!
It's obvious that such evidence could have been gathered during their time (and if you want i can forward you some solid research on those weapons with pictures and descriptions) but the judges regarded themselves not the experts in the field and since the defense wasn't there to argue the case they had to rule this way.
This is the only reason this ruling overturned the previous verdict (finding the defendants not guilty on the basis of the Second Amendment's protection) and the subsequent Federal Administrations used and abused it's course to the point where it's impossible to buy a rifle just like the one our boys use in Iraq today (M16) if it was manufactured after 1986.
Now that's disarmament by government rule: something the Second Amendment was designed to forbid. Just like the First Amendment was designed to protect your right to publish your thoughts and hear my response: however libelous or treasonous we may sound.
She replied:
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your email. It's especially welcome given the tone of some of
the other messages I have received! AW