Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
WeikuBoy, Read what you wrote
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WeikuBoy: "Did the court not look to state law to determine if Mr. Miller's sawed-off shotgun had any such [reasonable] relationship to his state's militia?"
------------------------------
No, Miller was charged under Title 26, or the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Federal Law.
The Court ruled it was the "absence of evidence" that such an instrument had military uses.
-------------------------------
Read what you wrote, Miller did not look to Arkansas State law, it looked to the body of law, some of which is from other states. Plus, Miller was not concerned directly with what Arkansas law was on the matter, it was concerned with whether or not a sawed off shotgun had any connection with any militia or military use.
Your sentence made it seem that Miller looked to state law as in Arkansas law, which in did not.
-
Let the readers decide.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xanthro, you are just too stupid to continue attempting this debate. You don't understand the law well enough to even realize how ridiculous your arguments sound. The final straw was when you finally got around to laying on us some of your "many" big anti-gun control 2A precedents, and it turned out to be two cases from the freakin' 19th century and another one from 1931, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE MILLER CASE. (Though I must admit, the cite from ante-bellum Georgia gave me a laugh.) Then again, there was also the 1990 case THAT WASN'T EVEN A 2A CASE. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
I take it back; the last straw was when you accused the federal appeals courts of silently approving of Emerson (a case you didn't even know about until I told you about it), EVEN THOUGH EMERSON WAS ONLY DECIDED IN 2001, long AFTER almost all the other circuits had decided the issue, and before they will have had a chance to revisit the issue, should they so desire. It's like trying to teach a pig to talk; and frankly it reflects very poorly on me that I spent so much time trying to have a discussion with you. In that sense I am indeed the stupid one, and I apologize to you, to Salon, and to any unfortunate readers.
-----------------------
I'll let the Salon readers decide as to the merits of the arguments and the respective level of maturity shown between us.
Most of what you've done is simply try to create arguments for others that they did not make. Example, I never spoke that the silence of the other districts meant they affirm Miller, only that such silence is not exceptional. You claimed this silence meant an affirmation.
Now that you've conceded that your interpretation of Miller was incorrect.
BTW, law doesn't age. It stands until it is overturned or rewritten. That's why I gave citations from different time periods.
-
majority rule
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We live in a nation based on "majority rule" , so why does the minority think it has the right to overthrow the majority?
The arguements about whether gun ownership is a right or not is irrelevant when the majority decides in favor of ownership.
----------------------
We don't live in a nation based on majority rule, in fact our republican system of government is specifically designed to shield rights from tyranny of the majority.
If 90% of the people decided to remove Jews and laws were passed forcing their removal, such laws would be unconstitutional.
Enforcement is always an issue, but a majority even an overwhelming majority does not get to legitimately impose its views upon us.