"Gun Rights Do Not Compute," Say Media Cyborgs

RichardPoe.com ^ | May 10, 2002 | Richard Poe

[Pharmboy]

I must once again quote Sen Phil Gramm on guns. When asked how many firearms does he own, the good senator said (picture this with full, slow-as-molasses Southern drawl):

"I've got more than I need but less than I want"

[Sonny M]

Small question, every lib goes back to 60 years of policy, blah, blah, blah. Are they conceding that for the first 140 years, the policy was that we did have individual rights to bear arms? and that Bush is merly going back to the first 140 years of policy?

[Shooter 2.5]

Give the lib a break. It only took the law professor from 1978 to 1999 to read and understand a one line sentence.

[NEPA]

Two gangsters named Jack Miller and Frank Layton

Gangsters? I thought they were good old boy moonshiners.

[4CJ]

Give the lib a break. It only took the law professor from 1978 to 1999 to read and understand a one line sentence.

For a dim, that makes him a genius.

[supercat]

True. But conseratives concede far too much ground if they agree with the reasoning in the Miller decision.

Actually, U.S. v. Miller was not really a loss for the Second Amendment. The real loss for the Second Amendment came when people started misconstruing what Miller actually said.

First of all, I would posit that not all objects which can be used as deadly weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. If they were, the federal government would be unable to tax or regulate sales of bricks, lumber, baseball bats, beer and wine bottles, gasoline, automobiles, belts, hammers, chainsaws, or much of anything else. I really don't think the Second Amendment was intended, or should be interpreted, as forbidding taxes on items like the above.

Since the Second Amendment clearly is not intended to forbid restrictions on acquisition, ownership, and transport of all items which could possibly be used as weapons, it is reasonable to ask what exactly are the "arms" that are protected. Here the "militia" phrase is useful: it establishes that the "arms" protected by the Second Amendment are artifacts which may be used as weapons in the context of a well-functioning citizen army.

While one might argue that the Court should have found that a short-barreled shotgun was such a weapon, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to make such determinations. Judges are to make extremely limitted use of their own personal knowledge on relevant subjects; for the judge to consider a fact, it should either have been admitted into evidence or else be something about which no controversy is possible. For example, if it were relevant to a case, a judge could take into account the fact that January 1, 1980 was a Tuesday, even if nobody presented evidence to that effect.

Unfortunately, the notion that a sawed-off shotgun would be useful in a well-functioning militia is not 100% non-controversial; one could make vaguely plausible arguments to the contrary. Consequently, the judges could not simply make use of personal knowledge on the subject, but had to remand the issue to trial court, the proper venue for examining such issues. Unfortunately, the government dropped the case and declared victory, while whoever wrote the Miller syllabus (which is not legally binding or even meaningful) wrote it to suggest an unambiguous government victory.

[17th Miss Regt]

Hey, liberals! The amendment prohibiting poll taxes reversed some 40-50 years of state policy. Does this mean that banning them was a bad idea?

[Texasforever]

The gangsters might have won their case by arguing that sawed-off shotguns were used by U.S. infantrymen in World War I. However, neither Miller, Layton nor their attorney showed up in court. Only the prosecution presented its case.

"sawed off" shotguns are perfectly legal and sold today. It depends on which end is sawed off. I know because I own one. It is called a Winchester Defender aka Campers shotgun.

[philman_36]

Another fine example of how you operate on the threads.
Cutting off the barrel of the shotgun is what makes it "sawed-off", not because it has a pistol grip.
Caution: Disinformation artist at work.

[Gianni]

Yes, but there is magic in sawing off a shotgun. It is legal to saw off a shotgun barrel, so long as at least 21" remains. If your shotgun is 20.9999", it is rendered ineffective as a militia weapon.

[nickcarraway]

Since when does Paul Begala care what Abraham Lincoln thought? If nothing else, he's a Republican, therefore evil in Begala's mind.

[aomagrat]

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert averred that federal policy has opposed individual gun rights, "for more than 60 years."

So, the assault on the Second Amendment coincides with the start of global communism. Coincidence?

[Texasforever]

Cutting off the barrel of the shotgun is what makes it "sawed-off", not becase it has a pistol grip.

You need all the "barrel" you can get. Tell me, hotshot, what is the shot pattern difference between a 12 gauge at ten yards for standard length vs 18 inches.

[Gianni]

I used to have a statistic that said something like 95% of gunplay takes place at 15 feet or less. At that range, I would have trouble thinking of a better weapon than a street sweeper with a 10" barrel, regardless of pattern.

Don't you watch John Wayne movies?

[Texasforever]

I used to have a statistic that said something like 95% of gunplay takes place at 15 feet or less. At that range, I would have trouble thinking of a better weapon than a street sweeper with a 10" barrel, regardless of pattern.

They don't call them scatter guns for nothing and that is the reason they are illegal. Yes, if you are fighting a head on battle with someone then those that you hit are legitimate targets however, if anyone is even close to the action they are going to be hit or in danger of it, innocent or not. If maneuverability in tight quarters is the goal then the defender is more than adequate and the shot distribution is at least somewhat controllable by the shooter.

[philman_36]

You need all the "barrel" you can get.
You need all the "help" you can get, and I urge you to get some soon. And for you to think that I needd more "barrel" that means that you've seen my "barrel". Why were you checking out my "barrel" unbeknownst to me you sick freak? Are you finally coming out of the "gun safe"?
Tell me, hotshot...
Why are you asking me, I have no knowledge or it is incorrect, I'm immature physically and intellectually.
Instruct me and lead me to knowledge Oh Wise One.

[Lazamataz]

Oy vey.

You are reduced to bragging to one another (albiet in code) about PENIS SIZE????

Admin Mod, seperate these two pugalists for a three-count. Maybe a word from you will lend some sobriety to a increasingly high-school-level exchange.

[philman_36]

Hey man, read the thread. Tex is the one doing the penis thing. Don't chastise me for what he started.
I guess you just want me to lie down and take it eh?

Get off my back!

[RightWinger]

The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights (individual rights), not group rights as the militia argument would support.

[Gianni]

I was just making the point that sawed-off's seem to have a time and place. If I were to accept that they were useless, then it would seem I would also have to accept the same argument about fully-automatic and those evil-looking black-stocked, barrel-shrouded "assault" weapons.

As far as 'spraying' from a sawed off, I have oftentimes gotten the same effect from tightly choked guns due to shot deformation. There always seems to be a few 'flyers' that land outside the pattern, oftentimes by a wide range. I would still consider a shotgun an ideal weapon for close-quaters.