Thus spracht ME

Rants and commentary. My PGP key fingerprint F697 6D3F F5DF BD2F 01B6 ED98 5303 8036 C3FC 4DF3

My Photo
Location: North East, Ohio, United States

Tuesday, August 16, 2005


Kevin and Alex are at it again... And the debate rages on... Round one goes to Kevin on points because Alex never made one. Alex leads off round two with a wide swinging windmill of missed opportunity. Jaysouse! Even my public school educated son can take that mess apart... I'll only address one area towards the end. From Alex:

And I love the way you just decide that the phrase in the beginning of the sentence is 'explanatory'. Really? Why didn't the court think so in United States v. Miller? It saw the phrase about the militia and observed that [w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the second amendment were made. It must be interpreted WITH THAT END IN VIEW (emphasis added). So the court said, rather clearly, that the second amendment must be viewed restrictively, as serving the purpose of supporting a well regulated militia
Nope, what the court said was that Absent any evidence that such a device (sawed-off shotgun )was usseful to the maintenance of a well regulated militia... I have more to say about this Read more... The key here is in italics. Miller was not there at the hearing. Nor was his attorney. No one there but the judges and the U.S.atorney. And the U.S. atorney lied, saying that a sawed off shotgun was of no value or use to the military. In spite of the fact that sawed off shotguns were standard issue in WW 1 for trench fighters. Imagin that, a lawyer lied. And under oath, too. Bill wasn't the first. I am awarding round two to Keven even befor his post is up. Alex, I hope I never meet you as the feelings of pity I have for you might just be too much for me to bear. You are a sheep. Baaaaaa!