Poisoning the Second Amendment Court Record
BY Herschel Smith
1 week, 1 day ago
These are the people who would presume to rule you, knowing nothing whatsoever about either firearms or the law. It’s truly remarkable how ignorant judges can be.
On another note, I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating, that arguing for semi-automatic firearms because they aren’t fully automatic firearms and thus not in military use is the wrong tactic. One of these days, some bright, inspired, progressive lawyer is going to make hay out of that tactic.
First of all, it runs contrary to the purpose of the second amendment, which is to ameliorate tyranny, or in other words, self defense against both individuals and the state. The only reason for taking firearms is that the government intends to do something to you that wouldn’t be possible if you were armed.
Second, this tactic is just factually false. Pistols are semi-automatic weapons, as are the Benelli M4 shotguns the Marines used to clear Now Zad, Afghanistan, of the Taliban. Designated Marksmen still use both bolt action rifles and AR pattern rifles, and shooting fully automatic as a designated marksman makes no sense. Sniper rifles are virtually universally bolt action rifles due to the bolt lockup and chamber dimensions as compared to gas guns. Many times I have conveyed that my youngest son used both the SAW and the M4 in Fallujah, and he never used the M4 in full auto mode. None of the Marines did. The “military use” mantra is a distinction without a difference.
Third, we are poisoning the court record with all of this language about semi-automatic versus automatic and how one is for civilian use and one is for military use. This could come back to harm the second amendment community when all of the examples of semi-automatic firearms usage is cataloged by some enterprising controller.
Just stop doing it. I understand all about winning the case before you, but these records could become very important down the road.
On November 15, 2024 at 5:31 am, Joe Blow said:
YES, you nailed it.
Argue the literal meaning and interpretation of the text of the Amendment as written.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is black and white. Don’t introduce grey into the discussion. No restrictions. None. Zero. Anything that restricts my access to anything related to “arms”, is an infringement, and illegal. Period. That is the only argument to be proffered, and the only one you will need if you stick to it!
Stop shooting ourselves in the foot. Do not give an inch. Don’t give in on hi-cap mags, don’t give in on foregrips, don’t give in on anything. English is pretty concise when wielded by an educated individual. Our forefathers chose the words “arms” and “shall not be infringed” deliberately and with purpose. There were hundreds of other words that could have been used to encapsulate the message, but none so effective and concise. Access to Arms (rifles, black powder, cartridge guns from their day, but also included canons, artillery, etc. – Military grade weapons of war) shall not be infringed (not narrowed down, no comprehensive definition was deliberately applied). You cannot stop us, is what that Amendment says. Start arguing like it. Slimy lawyers who are smarter than you will eat you for lunch, if you argue anything less (see every state where unconstitutional laws exist on the books if you still think you’re brighter than everyone else).