Quote of the day—Sanjay Sanghoee

If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one’s home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period. There are no legitimate uses for such weapons in civilian life, regardless of whether you need to pull the trigger once or multiple times. So stop the quibbling and let’s agree on something reasonable on this front.

Sanjay Sanghoee
August 14, 2012
After Three Shootings, America Needs Zero Tolerance on Guns
[He has crap for brains for believing there are guns readily available that “spray bullets” and there are no legitimate uses guns of the type that he attempts to describe. He makes his case worse using the faulty logic that because the Supreme Court explained one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was defense of one’s home that is the only purpose of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore he is indirectly demanding the banning of modern revolvers. Here is a demonstration of a dozen bullets fired from a revolver in under three seconds:

Although the gun probably would get too hot to hold if one were to shoot at this rate for a full minute it is reasonable to claim a rate of fire on the order of 200+ rounds per minute with a revolver. My guess is that with no more than one day of practice nearly any healthy adult could easily shoot “dozens of rounds per minute” with a revolver.

This doesn’t even address the constitutional issues of banning guns “in common use” but now that we have established Sanjay Sanghoee has crap for brains such discussions have zero additional value.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sanjay Sanghoee

  1. Yup. Anything that has military utility is covered under the second. See U.S. v Miller. 30 round magazines, 100 round magazines, automatic fire; all those have legitimate military applications. They all therefore fall under the “well regulated militia” as used in the explanatory clause. If they had no practical use in defense, why would so many militaries and police departments have them?

    Meanwhile; the Republicans are desperately trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election.

  2. Of course, there’s a legitimate First Amendment reason for owning the firearms of my choice:

    My decision to own firearms is, at least in part, my way of communicating to both Sanjay Sanghoee and others of his ilk that I cordially invite them to autofornicate.

  3. “[B]ecause the Supreme Court explained one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was defense of one’s home that is the only purpose of the Second Amendment.”

    If that is the case, then the First Amendment is only about the freedom to buy and possess pornography.

Comments are closed.