possum_128
Master
In todays Sunday Star 4-7-2013 the following letter was printed;
There is no conceivable reason to think anyone should have “the right” to have military-style weapons to use in our communities. The Second Amendment was never intended to give civilians the capacity to shoot hundreds of bullets a minute under the false premise of “protecting themselves.”
But I have a deal for you: If you really have the need to have access to these types of weapons and if you are really into killing people, Uncle Sam has a job for you. You can join the military, where there will be lots of guns to shoot. You will be happy because you can shoot your killing machines, and our communities will be safer and more peaceful; maybe there will be one less Newtown.
Sen. Joe Donnelly and Sen. Dan Coats, please support background checks, gun trafficking legislation and, above all, an assault rifle ban.
Linda Porter
I just mailed my response to the above letter, I hope they will print it.
This is in response to the letter posted in the Sunday April 7th edition titled, No right to military-style weapons by Linda Porter.
Ms. Porter needs only to look at history to see just how wrong she is. The second amendment grants, we the people military weapons.
Consider the case of United States vs. Miller.The U.S. vs. Miller case in 1939 was a direct attack on the constitutionality of the National Firearm Act of 1934. In this case, bootleggers Jack Miller and Frank Layton had been arrested for crossing state lines with an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun. The defendants proposed that the National Firearm Act of 1934 was a violation of the Second Amendment rights. The federal district court agreed with the defendants and quashed the indictment. The government appealed this ruling directly to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. One key event occurred at the hearing. Miller, Layton and their lawyers all failed to appear. Miller and Layton had disappeared. As a result, there was no presentation by their side.
The court declared: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has some reasonable relationship to the preservatio nor efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it 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.
The fact was that a sawed-off shotgun was commonly referred to as a 'trench gun' in World War I. But this knowledge was outside the scope of what the Supreme Court could use. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the federal district court ruling, not because the Second Amendment was determined to be a collective right, but because the firearm in question was not a militia weapon.
So the Supreme Court, the law of the land, had declared that a non-military weapon was not covered by the second amendment therefore, a military style weapon must be covered under the second amendment, right? If not then what is covered?
The musket at the time the constitution was written was the military style weapon of its time and most every citizen owned one. Our founders were smart folks who knew guns as well as everything else in the world would advance so her reasoning does not hold water.
In case she or anyone else wants to use the incorrect excuse that the second amendment only applies to the militia let me add this, in Article I, section 8, clause16 of the constitution; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Therefore the part of the second amendment that states; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore the right to own military style weapons must be for the people as a whole and not just for the militia.
There is no conceivable reason to think anyone should have “the right” to have military-style weapons to use in our communities. The Second Amendment was never intended to give civilians the capacity to shoot hundreds of bullets a minute under the false premise of “protecting themselves.”
But I have a deal for you: If you really have the need to have access to these types of weapons and if you are really into killing people, Uncle Sam has a job for you. You can join the military, where there will be lots of guns to shoot. You will be happy because you can shoot your killing machines, and our communities will be safer and more peaceful; maybe there will be one less Newtown.
Sen. Joe Donnelly and Sen. Dan Coats, please support background checks, gun trafficking legislation and, above all, an assault rifle ban.
Linda Porter
I just mailed my response to the above letter, I hope they will print it.
This is in response to the letter posted in the Sunday April 7th edition titled, No right to military-style weapons by Linda Porter.
Ms. Porter needs only to look at history to see just how wrong she is. The second amendment grants, we the people military weapons.
Consider the case of United States vs. Miller.The U.S. vs. Miller case in 1939 was a direct attack on the constitutionality of the National Firearm Act of 1934. In this case, bootleggers Jack Miller and Frank Layton had been arrested for crossing state lines with an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun. The defendants proposed that the National Firearm Act of 1934 was a violation of the Second Amendment rights. The federal district court agreed with the defendants and quashed the indictment. The government appealed this ruling directly to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. One key event occurred at the hearing. Miller, Layton and their lawyers all failed to appear. Miller and Layton had disappeared. As a result, there was no presentation by their side.
The court declared: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has some reasonable relationship to the preservatio nor efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it 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.
The fact was that a sawed-off shotgun was commonly referred to as a 'trench gun' in World War I. But this knowledge was outside the scope of what the Supreme Court could use. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the federal district court ruling, not because the Second Amendment was determined to be a collective right, but because the firearm in question was not a militia weapon.
So the Supreme Court, the law of the land, had declared that a non-military weapon was not covered by the second amendment therefore, a military style weapon must be covered under the second amendment, right? If not then what is covered?
The musket at the time the constitution was written was the military style weapon of its time and most every citizen owned one. Our founders were smart folks who knew guns as well as everything else in the world would advance so her reasoning does not hold water.
In case she or anyone else wants to use the incorrect excuse that the second amendment only applies to the militia let me add this, in Article I, section 8, clause16 of the constitution; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Therefore the part of the second amendment that states; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore the right to own military style weapons must be for the people as a whole and not just for the militia.
Last edited:
was due to cut and paste, will look over and fix. Holy crap Batman, you were right about the spacing. I did not read after pasteing it here. The original copy was fine, sorry.
