Quote of the day—Brief of NRA

Just as it is no answer to ban protected firearms because they might sometimes be misused by criminals, Highland Park cannot ban them because they are too good at what they are supposed to do. Broken down to its most basic function, a firearm is a tool that is designed to leverage force. And millions of Americans prefer the prohibited firearms because they more effectively leverage force due to their increased accuracy, reliability, versatility, and safety. Pet. Writ Cert. at 9-11, 19-20, 29; infra pp. 17-27. The fact that the prohibited firearms perform better cannot be a justification for their confiscation.

BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brief of NRA

  1. It’s a fine argument, that is, if we’ve agreed to abandon the over-riding principle which says that the ultimate power in American resides with the people, that government exists only to secure our rights thereto. I haven’t agreed.

    If we accept that foundational principle of liberty then the types of guns we have is none of government’s business whatsoever. If we reject that principle then America ceases to be America, and the quoted argument doesn’t very much matter.

    See, it’s that screw tightening concept again.

    • This is part of a brief presented to the court. Principles of that nature are of extremely limited value in this environment.

        • This is more like the “Goldilocks” principle of gun control. “This gun’s too weak, that gun’s too powerful. This gun is too inaccurate, that gun’s too accurate.”
          and miracle of miracles! There is no gun which is “just right” for the proles to keep and bear.

          • The power to restrict is the power to destroy, and the desire to destroy is the only motivation for restriction. The second amendment was intended to prevent that.

            Of course, destroying something as precious as a fundamental right requires clever deception. In this case we’re being given the ridiculous premise that total non-restriction equals legalized murder. It’s mostly innuendo of course (they seldom come right out and say it) and the deception functions on a purely emotional level.

Comments are closed.