Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
QOTD for tomorrow.
the purpose of the 2nd amendment is parsed with precision and accuracy. it is not to preserve hunting weapons, in the sense of sport hunting for animals for food & trophy.
it is to protect our ability to kill humans in the form of tyrants and faction who would destroy our liberties and rights, and who would suppress and tyrannize us by force. as such, the weapons protected are designed to kill quickly, efficiently and in great number in armed (and ferocious) combat. there is no element of sport or chivalry in such matters, only the application of lethal firepower upon an armed opponent.
god bless you for printing this precise description of the function of the second amendment as supplied by federal judge kozinski.
p.s. would you please be so kind as to provide a proper citation to these remarks, especially if set forth in case law. and, if they were made in the context of a controlling majority opinion, so much the better. in addition, if you would supply the history of the case, and whether or not it was reviewed by the supreme court of the united states.
in such matters, this is very important. ask any lawyer about “shephardizing.”
It was in the dissent. Here.
Sadly, the doomsday option draws closer, as the rule of law is clearly dead. Clinton cleared in Email-gate. She’s not one of the little people, so the law doesn’t apply to her. OTOH, I think it will become a really great issue for Trump.
Yes, it’s a great issue. But Trump is probably the only republican in the entire country capable of losing to Hillary. I suppose he might win in spite of his best efforts every day to bring about defeat. But I keep thinking he might well end up winning zero states, outlosing even McGovern.
Or Clinton could be Mondale to Trump’s Regan. Time will tell. The debates, if Hillary agrees to it, should be fun to watch.
Remember that the debates are run by leftists, so the questions will be constructed to make Hillary look good.
Don’t be surprised if there AREN’T any debates!!
Joslin doesn’t seem to know that “assault rifles or other automatic weapons” are already so highly restricted that it takes up to a year, and tens of thousands of dollars (typically) to purchase one. He mentions automatics, then treats a semi automatic, presumably, as a machinegun.
Yes, many hunters do in fact use semi automatics to hunt down and kill deer or other game. It’s common.
Paul Joslin doesn’t seem to know anything about the National Firearms Act of 1934, as modified by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, doesn’t understand hunting, recreational shooting or self defense, doesn’t understand the simple language of the second amendment, can’t tell the difference between an assault rifle and a semiautomatic, doesn’t know that the AR-15 is America’s favorite rifle, doesn’t understand that criminals disobey gun laws as readily as they disobey other laws, and can’t acknowledge the definition of a human right.
He wishes to pass all of that off as cleverness. Unfortunately, with the conditioning against critical thinking that takes place in public education, some people will accept it as cleverness.
More likely; he does at least partially understand those things, and he carries on with the misrepresentations and anti-logic anyway, because he’s allied himself with the enemies of liberty. He must pay tribute.
The Soviets were good at the kind of thing Joslin is doing there, but today’s Progressives have made it into a high art. As I’ve said elsewhere; don’t make the mistake of believing that all these Progressives are butt-stupid when they say such apparently butt-stupid things. There’s a method to the madness, they learn it and teach it well, and it works, so while it is tempting to laugh at them and make fun of it, there is a deadly serious undertone to it, and they DO know what they’re doing.
These people believe that the Earth should have less than a billion people on it, and they wish to see that accomplished.
Permit me to suggest that paul roll up his ignorant screed and stuff it up his garbage disposal unit on his hindside. After watching that piece of .gov garbage choke out his excuses for hillary while felching the alien in the wh, I am SO DONE. I’m starting to track nice, high, rooftops, heh, heh, heh.
The gentleman is probably correct in his statement regarding the use of an assault weapon for deer hunting. If by assault weapon he meant to say an AR pattern rifle chambered in 223(5.56). Most conscientious hunters would choose a rifle chambered in something significantly more powerful, say 30-06 or 270W. But then again, it’s not really about hunting.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Bill Twist | The View From North Central Idaho
My AR in 300BLK will do just fine for hunting deer and other big game. My AR in 5.56 is more for hunting paper targets and tyrants, not game.
What about a .458 SOCOM?
There’s an AR for that!
Anyone with half a brain could see how the modern day semi-automatic rifle, especially the AR-15, “contributes to the efficacy of the militia” to beat the liberals’ favorite drum, the 1939 Miller v. US case.
They’re not “assault weapons”… they’re militia rifles!
That’s why progressives oppose them. “Make no mistake: the only reason that they want to take your guns is so they can do things to you that they can’t do if you keep your guns.” (Neil Smith)