Friday, January 28, 2011

What do ‘sporting purposes’ have to do with Second Amendment?

The sporting purposes/militia suitability fraud gives the government cover for the perfect Catch-22 pincer strategy/squeeze play: You can’t have this gun because it has military characteristics.  And you can’t have this gun because it doesn’t have military characteristics.  [More]
Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at a rigged outcome.

Share the link?

3 comments:

Defender said...

I went to the ATF report after I read this, about a lawsuit over AIR PISTOL POSSESSION in New York City. The court ruled that since air pistols are not recognized as being "generally used for self-defense or hunting," they are not "arms" and therefore not protected under the Second Amendment.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/air-guns-not-%E2%80%9Carms%E2%80%9D-for-2nd-amendment-purposes

I have trouble finding the passage now, but the ATF report says some "panel" concluded that plinking WITH ANY GUN is definitely NOT a "sport." Sooo... we can be "separated from" our airguns now because they are used in neither self-defense nor sport.
F-- "sporting use."

Defender said...

David, just saw this comment on Sipsey Street:

"I work for a pretty large gun distributor in the midwest US. Word trickled down to us this morning that Yugoslavian AKs and SKSs are about to be import banned. Panic buying by dealers has already started at a low level, but news hasn't broken to the net yet."

Sure am glad they don't want to take our guns. Imagine if they did.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

"Sporting purposes" are no more relevant than spouting porpoises (yeah, I know--that's a dolphin, rather than a porpoise--best I could find).