In todays letters to the editor, Garden Island News. For your enjoyment.

http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-for-wednesday-april/article_409abad0-ddbc-11e4-b32f-d3a467307016.html

Guy must've been high when he wrote that letter. 

Guy must've been high when he wrote that letter.

It reads like a bot response citing the long discredited "public health studies" statistics about firearm injuries and then deteriorates into an abysmally ignorant assertion that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment restricts firearm ownership to members of the Militia, but then fails to mention who was considered members of the Militia at the time of the writing (i.e. every adult male). Finally shows true colors and simply states no one should have guns in order that we can all live happily ever after. Notice he fails to mention the right to own a unicorn. 

Guy must've been high when he wrote that letter.

Likely one of the SuperFerry protestors as well.

It reads like a bot response citing the long discredited "public health studies" statistics about firearm injuries and then deteriorates into an abysmally ignorant assertion that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment restricts firearm ownership to members of the Militia, but then fails to mention who was considered members of the Militia at the time of the writing (i.e. every adult male). Finally shows true colors and simply states no one should have guns in order that we can all live happily ever after. Notice he fails to mention the right to own a unicorn. 

The second amendment  states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." not the right of the militia to bear arms. These morons twist things in their head so much that they lose touch with reality.

Steven McMacken, Lihue would be patient #2 in a zombie outbreak as he tried to defend himself from a zombie with reasoning.

The second amendment  states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." not the right of the militia to bear arms. These morons twist things in their head so much that they lose touch with reality.

Former SCOTUS justice Stevens, a dissenter on the losing side in both Heller and MacDonald affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, wants to amend the Constitution in several ways, including to add the words "when serving in the militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" phrase. You know, to "clarify" things. He can't get over losing that one.

J. Neil Schulman, in his book "Stopping Power", had two different recognized English language grammar experts analyze the language of the Second Amendment, and both concluded that the prefatory clause has no bearing on the right of individual's to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, it took SCOTUS over 200 years to get around to reaching the same conclusion in a published opinion.

The first analysis is recounted here: http://www.wagc.com/english-usage-expert-interprets-2nd-amendment-2/ Schulman used the exact same wording order, but changed a few words in this first example, in order to introduce less possible bias, even though the expert afterwords noted that he thought the sentence sounded familiar, but hadn't connected it to the Second Amendment. "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”

The second analysis is here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

Good references for anyone who might be open to considering what the language of the amendment actually means, even if they've bought into the "militia only" error/lie.

So, let's have a WAR ON GUNS.  Let's ban guns for anyone without a permit issued by the state for official duties:  body guards, police, security guards, military, etc.

Better yet, let's pattern it after the WAR ON DRUGS.  Make everyone who breaks the possession law, even if they don't ever use the gun, criminals unless they have a permit. 

Today we have so many vacancies in prisons, and the courts are so under-worked, we really need another war on SOMETHING to criminalize possession of, because God knows we can't seem to successfully legislate behavior.

Former SCOTUS justice Stevens, a dissenter on the losing side in both Heller and MacDonald affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, wants to amend the Constitution in several ways, including to add the words "when serving in the militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" phrase. You know, to "clarify" things. He can't get over losing that one.

J. Neil Schulman, in his book "Stopping Power", had two different recognized English language grammar experts analyze the language of the Second Amendment, and both concluded that the prefatory clause has no bearing on the right of individual's to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, it took SCOTUS over 200 years to get around to reaching the same conclusion in a published opinion.

The first analysis is recounted here: http://www.wagc.com/english-usage-expert-interprets-2nd-amendment-2/ Schulman used the exact same wording order, but changed a few words in this first example, in order to introduce less possible bias, even though the expert afterwords noted that he thought the sentence sounded familiar, but hadn't connected it to the Second Amendment. "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”

The second analysis is here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

Good references for anyone who might be open to considering what the language of the amendment actually means, even if they've bought into the "militia only" error/lie.

Fortunately, the constitution and the bill of rights was written in relatively plain language and not the lawyer language that have be translated, and completely change meaning, depending on the political views of the current justices, like the laws today. You can bet those two documents would be at least fifty thousand pages if written today.

It seems to me that the "rank and file" of useful idots on the hyperleft have been whipped into throwing out any anti-gun rhetoric, true or not, that they can... anyplace they can.

They, in other words, have been recruited as volunteers into the Ministry of Propaganda.  Tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth... and that's their goal.

The anti-gun forces have no ethical code and will do anything to advance their program because in their minds the end justifies the means.

I also expect to see a lot more "I own a gun, but.." letters to the editors and other nonsense everywhere I look.

Terry

It seems to me that the "rank and file" of useful idots on the hyperleft have been whipped into throwing out any anti-gun rhetoric, true or not, that they can... anyplace they can.

Indeed, and reflect on how this has all started and awelled since Obola usurped the office. 

The anti-gun left feels empowered and supported by the current regime, so they are going all out, feeling time may be running out.

Yet again time to remember the traitors that voted for Obola and helped create the chaos we find ourselves immersed in.  In this area and many others.

As much as I despise McStain and Mittens, don't try to tell me this sort of anti-gun hysteria would be going on and building up.