BitYakin
Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR Okay, so on the one hand, I have the New Yorker, the Library of Congress, and my reading of the Miller opinion. On the other, I have SOME GUY RAVING ON THE INTERNET. Yes, that's a tough call as to whom to believe. ok lets start with the new yorker. are you saying that the heller case never happened? cause that what the new yoker article says... and if they can't even get THAT right I dismiss EVERYTHING the man says! this is nothing more than an anti gun author putting forth an article and PRETENDING the heller case NEVER happened, and hoping people are to stupid to know! done with that one! I didn't see a link to the library of congress, but I presume you mean the text of the miller case, which does not say the right to hear arms is limited to militias, it says, since in their opinion a saw off shot gun is not part of regular militia gear is cannot be protected by the 2nd amendment to put it simply, if the INDIVUAL was called up to serve in a militia, bringing a saw off shot gun would not be apropriate gear, but it does not say as an individual he does not have a right to own/bear other arms... just because you see the word milita in a SC opinion/ruling does not mean what ever you want it to mean, it means what is actualy said, that that PARTICULAR GUN, is not covered, it does not adreess indivual rights one way or the other! your INTERPRETATON of the miller case is INCCORECT!!
< Message edited by BitYakin -- 9/22/2013 5:32:49 PM >
|