-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Not sure what's up with the link I copied? Here's a screen shot ...
And still is
Anybody here read John Ross's classic RKBA masterpiece, Unintended Consequences?
He does the best job I've seen, via a novel that includes the story of US v Miller, of documenting how that case opened the floodgates, but is SO grossly in error that it must NEVER be actually reported or re-examined.
The VERY brief story is this:
Miller was a bootlegger, who failed to pay the unconstitutional tax on a sawed-off shotgun. The US Western District of Arkansas court rightly threw the case out, saying the "National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
But the crooked feds weren't done. And history shows why they picked a poor moonshiner with a shotgun rather than a full auto Browning Automatic Rifle. They went to the Supreme Court, where Miller couldn't afford an attorney to appear, and most of the justices had NOT served in the military, and were thus IGNORANT of the fact that Miller's "sawed-off shotgun" WAS IN FACT a "weapon of war."
Pay close attention to that. WAS a "weapon of war." Because such shotguns WERE used in the trenches in WW I. But the 'justices' were ignorant of that, and the feds didn't bother to point it out. The questions were side-stepped that would have resulted in a reaffirmation of the same obvious unconstitutionality.
So - since the claim was that the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY protects the Right of the people to "keep and bear arms" - and SPECIFICALLY of the type that soldiers would carry, Miller's shotgun didn't count.
NOT because - as the Evil ObaMessiah tried to claim - only SOLDIERS need such weapons - but because the court was convinced the 2A was about PROTECTING the Right to keep and bear arms USED in MILITARY CONFLICT.
The most anti-gun (but oddly now, dramatic in opposition to the Third Reich "sporting arms" language) decision in history, was a gross error. And that's why it's never actually discussed.
Now you know, the "Rest of the Story."
But if you can get hold of a copy of Ross' Tour de Force - read it. (Guess why Big Bro doesn't want to make that easy...)
He does the best job I've seen, via a novel that includes the story of US v Miller, of documenting how that case opened the floodgates, but is SO grossly in error that it must NEVER be actually reported or re-examined.
The VERY brief story is this:
Miller was a bootlegger, who failed to pay the unconstitutional tax on a sawed-off shotgun. The US Western District of Arkansas court rightly threw the case out, saying the "National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
But the crooked feds weren't done. And history shows why they picked a poor moonshiner with a shotgun rather than a full auto Browning Automatic Rifle. They went to the Supreme Court, where Miller couldn't afford an attorney to appear, and most of the justices had NOT served in the military, and were thus IGNORANT of the fact that Miller's "sawed-off shotgun" WAS IN FACT a "weapon of war."
Pay close attention to that. WAS a "weapon of war." Because such shotguns WERE used in the trenches in WW I. But the 'justices' were ignorant of that, and the feds didn't bother to point it out. The questions were side-stepped that would have resulted in a reaffirmation of the same obvious unconstitutionality.
So - since the claim was that the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY protects the Right of the people to "keep and bear arms" - and SPECIFICALLY of the type that soldiers would carry, Miller's shotgun didn't count.
NOT because - as the Evil ObaMessiah tried to claim - only SOLDIERS need such weapons - but because the court was convinced the 2A was about PROTECTING the Right to keep and bear arms USED in MILITARY CONFLICT.
The most anti-gun (but oddly now, dramatic in opposition to the Third Reich "sporting arms" language) decision in history, was a gross error. And that's why it's never actually discussed.
Now you know, the "Rest of the Story."
But if you can get hold of a copy of Ross' Tour de Force - read it. (Guess why Big Bro doesn't want to make that easy...)
Last edited:
I love it! I shared it on FB.
THAT was hilarious!! (I clicked the 'watch on Youtube' line in your post and it played.)
He is so funny ... and pretty spot-on.
That is so true, men did those things in the hope that they'd get boobs as a reward.
Yeah! Preach it brother. Real woman have B( . )( . )bies and real men don't have M( . )( . )bies.