Dangerous Ruling [BARF ALERT]

Washington Post ^ | March 10, 2007 | Washington Post

[absalom01]

The funny thing is, if you read U.S. v. Miller, (it's quite short), you realize that it doesn't say what the Post says it does.  The bit they quote is where the court is pondering what type of weapon constitutes the "arms" that the 2nd amendment protects as an individual right.

The conclusion the court seemed to be coming to was that arms of the type generally used by the militia (in contrast to those used by criminals) were protected.

What amazes me is that the Post has been telling the same lies for three decades, and they don't seem even the littlest bit ashamed of themselves.